COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 23 July 1872 vol 212 cc1674-705

Order for Committee read.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had no desire whatever by interposing that any delay should take place in discussing most carefully and completely the provisions of this Bill; but in justice to those who had supported him in the measure which he introduced this Session, and which stood for second reading, he desired to say a few words. No doubt quite unintentionally, the promise made some time ago by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—namely, that his (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's) Bill should, after second reading, proceed pari passu with the Government Bill—had not been carried out. Many people who supported him were much disappointed at the results which had taken place, inasmuch as his Bill, to all intents and purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman himself must be aware, was now a dead letter. He felt, under those circumstances, that the only course left open to him was to attempt to move some of the principle clauses of his Bill as Amendments on the Government measure. He had taken that course and given Notice of those Amendments, which he hoped he would be allowed to state his reasons for pressing, and for which he bespoke fair consideration. He repeated that he only made those remarks to set himself right with those who approved his Bill and gave him their support. He trusted that in the discussion upon which they were about entering time would not be wasted—that criticism would be confined to two or three great principles, and that these would be fully debated.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Preamble postponed.

Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

Clause 2 (Extent of Act).

On Motion of the Marquess of HARTINGTON, the words "or Ireland" were omitted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Illicit Sales.

Clause 3 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license) agreed to.

Clause 4 (Occupier of unlicensed premises liable for sale of liquor) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Seller liable for drinking on premises contrary to license).

MR. WATNEY

said, that by this clause the holder of a license for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises was liable to a penalty if the liquor sold was drunk on any highway adjoining or near his premises. Such a provision was open to great abuse, the penalty attached was excessive, and he begged, therefore, to move, in page 2, lines 35 and 36, to omit the words "or on any highway adjoining or near such premises."

MR. BRUCE

said, that this provision was taken from the Bill of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and it had been found to work well. Besides, it should be borne in mind that the drinking on the highway adjoining the unlicensed vendor's premises must be with the privity or consent of the unlicensed seller of intoxicating liquor.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

also defended this provision of the clause. It had been found necessary to make the Bill of 1869 more stringent in this respect. It was pointed out to him that until the second Act was passed, in all the beerhouses throughout the country benches were put outside the door, pots of beer were passed out, and the liquor being taken a little distance was drunk. There were several beerhouses in his own immediate neighbourhood which were doing an illegal trade in this way, and when the occupiers came for a renewal of the licenses he asked the chairman to explain to them this provision of the new Act, upon which, out of 11 applicants, nine immediately quitted the room when they found that they could no longer carry on this illicit trade.

Amendment negatived.

MR. WATNEY

said, the clause imposed on the seller for drinking on his premises, or on any highway adjoining, the maximum penalty of £10 for the first offence, and £20 for the second offence, any conviction for an offence under this section to be recorded on the license of the person convicted. Now, whatever might be thought as to the advisability of imposing a penalty on the seller, he contended that for the first offence the conviction should not be recorded on the license, because, in point of fact, it would affect him to the extent of one-third of the value of his license. He begged to move, in page 3, line 3, after "section," to insert "other than a first offence."

MR. BRUCE

observed that it must be assumed that in all the cases against which the clause was directed there would be evasions of the license. For the protection of the Revenue, and for the preservation of good order, it was desirable that, as regarded limited licenses, there should be such a provision as that in the clause.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the clause was an important one, and ought not to be hurried over, but fairly discussed. As regarded the convictions, he had an Amendment on the Paper respective cumulative penalties, and when the proper time arrived should certainly move it. He would, therefore, recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and introduce it, if necessary, on the bringing up of the Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE

observed that there was one thing he wished to prevent, and that was that no arbitrary rule should be laid down whereby magistrates should be obliged to endorse the license. He should therefore move, in page 3, line 4, at end, to add "if the convicting justice shall so order." There might be many cases where offences would be committed in the house of licensed victuallers without their knowledge or consent, and it would be a hard case to visit them with the penalties proposed by this Bill. All he asked was that in case of every offence the justices shall have an opportunity of exercising their judgment as to whether it ought to be inserted on the license.

MR. COLLINS

thought the Amendment wholly unnecessary. There would be no offence if the liquor was drunk on the premises with the consent and privity of the landlord.

MR. LOCKE

only meant it to be understood that he simply wished to leave a certain discretion with the magistrates. If three separate convictions be recorded on a man's license, it was taken from him, and he himself probably ruined for ever. Now, that was a most severe and arbitrary proceeding, and he wished to put as many checks upon it as possible.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

reminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill made it necessary to have every conviction inserted on the back of the license; but certainly if the justices were to be the parties—as they were intended to be—in granting licenses, he saw no reason whatever why they should not be at liberty to exercise a discretion. That, in his opinion, was not only necessary, but just and fair to all parties.

MR. BRUCE

pointed out that the clause applied only to persons holding a limited license for the sale of liquor off the premises; for such a man to allow it to be drunk on the premises would be a deliberate and serious offence; and if it was repeated three times in the course of five years the forfeiture of the license would be deserved, for the offence would be a scandalous fraud. He reminded the Committee that in cases of this description no magistrate would convict without the clearest evidence.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

was of opinion the clause effected the deepest interests of the trade. He wished to know if a licensed victualler carrying on a lawful trade and keeping a respectable house was led or involuntarily committed an offence against this Bill by means of his servants or otherwise, was he to suffer the extreme hardship of having convictions marked on the back of his license, which might ultimately destroy his prospects and ruin his business? What his hon. and learned Friend wished to secure by his Amendment was to give the magistrates a discretionary power in every case, so that they might act justly and fairly between all parties.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark entirely opposed to the principles of the Bill. He confessed that, much as he should like to see a discretionary power allowed to magistrates in cases where the offence was accidental, he could not see the justice of extending the benefit of it to persons who knowingly carried on trade in violation of the conditions on which they had undertaken it.

MR. F. S. POWELL

believed there were many cases in which it would be proper and necessary to give discretion to the magistrate. He hoped, however, the Amendment would be withdrawn, and afterwards brought up again at the proper place.

MR. LOCKE

, said, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment in deference to the wish of the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises contrary to license).

MR. BRUCE moved, in page 3, lines 6 and 7, to leave out "with intent to evade the conditions of his license," as the object of those words would be sufficiently attained by the final section of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert "out of or" after "liquor," in line 8. He said that in his Bill, passed in 1869, it was found that the clause was not sufficiently stringent to prevent large evasions of the Act. The words he now moved were part of those introduced into the Bill of 1870.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOCKE moved, in page 3, line 18, at end, add "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member observed, that he hoped the Amendment would be allowed to pass in that form, as he believed it to be most essential to fair and effective working of the Bill.

Amendment withdrawn.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert, "or place or places," after "premises" in line 20; and in line 23 to insert "as therein," after "thereon."

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Sale of spirits to children. See 2 & 3 Vict., c. 47., s. 43).

MR. PLIMSOLL moved, in page 3, line 26, after "description of" insert "malt liquor, wine, or."

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not consent to the insertion of these words. If a man went into a public-house with his children, and gave one of them a sip of beer out of his own glass, the publican would become liable to the penalty under the Amendment.

MR. COLLINS

Every boy at Eton or Harrow would be sent to prison.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN moved, in page 3, line 27, after "sixteen years," insert— Or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years. He thought that 14 years was a proper limit, and one which the Committee might safely accept, as it would certainly prevent very young children being made to drink in public-houses.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 27, after the words "sixteen years," to insert the words "or who sells or allows any person to sell, to be consumed on the premises, any description of intoxicating liquors to any person apparently under the age of fourteen years."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

said, he approved of the Amendment, and would strongly advise the Committee to adopt it. Its object was to prevent very young children from hanging about public-houses. It was not desirable that children should booze about public-houses, and the Amendment would prevent that, while it would not prevent a child having proper refreshment.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, he hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the advice just offered to him, as the Amendment would only serve to entrap the respectable tradesman carrying on an honest business. A person carrying on a legitimate business ought to be subject to clear and explicit rules. If a clear rule were laid down on this subject, well and good; but nothing could be more absurd than to expect that a licensed victualler should be a judge of whether a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age. Children of the same age differed very much in their apparent age; and it was well known that young Spanish ladies of 14 were more advanced than English ladies of 16. How, then, could a person in trade be expected to know that a child was under 14 or under 16 years of age? Teetotallers had their own views and a right to support them; but they had no right to put down those who advocated different views, and any efforts in that direction would not succeed. The Amendment before the Committee was monstrous, and he hoped it would be rejected. He was glad the hon and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) had resolved on a division, for the result of it would show whether the intention of hon. Members was to extinguish the business of licensed victuallers or give them fair play.

MR. T. E. SMITH

referred to the police reports as evidence of the evil that resulted from young people frequenting public-houses. It was only the other day that four boys had to be expelled from a Sunday school for being drunk. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to this Amendment.

MR. COLLINS

joined in the wish to have the words proposed inserted, for it was practically a question whether children of the age of 13 should be allowed to go and drink at public-houses.

MR. GREGORY

thought the Bill was quite strong enough without the words now proposed to be inserted in the clause. Many a boy at the age of 14 had been glad to get a glass of beer after rowing on the river or similar exercise, and he had done so himself at that age without being any the worse for it.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the question was not whether there were occasionally deplorable instances of boys drinking in public-houses, but whether Parliament could reasonably refuse to allow young persons the indulgence of obtaining innocent refreshment. The clause as it stood provided that spirits should not be sold to children under 16 years of ago; but in addition to that were they to say that if a boy took a walk into the country and procured a glass of beer at a public-house the person who supplied him should be fined 40s.?

MR. CANDLISH

asked whether anything could be more unseemly than that boys and girls of 12 and 14 years of age should sit in a public-house, and make jolly and carouse there. That really did happen, he said, in the manufacturing districts.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought the picture just drawn by hon. Member for Sunderland was very much exaggerated. The clause, which struck at the really vicious part of the thing— the supply of spirits to children under a certain age—quite met what was wanted. If hon. Members wished to pass a fair and honest measure, they should not attempt to provide against such extreme cases as those which had been cited.

MR. BRUCE

reminded the Committee that an enactment similar to that of the present clause was in operation in the metropolitan district, and that it was now sought simply to extend its operation to the country. Most of the mischief which had been referred to by hon. Members had been occasioned by spirits being supplied to children.

MR. LOCKE

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) must be aware that children worked at a very early age—certainly below 14—and that they must have their luncheons or dinners. Why should they not be allowed to have beer with their meals? The House of Commons seemed to deny everything to everybody but themselves; selfishness was creeping over those benches, which could not be put down too soon.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

proposed to split the difference by modifying the Amendment, so that it would read "apparently under the age of 15 years of age."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

said, the Amendment applied to children and to children only, and that the Committee had no idea how strong the feeling was on the subject in some parts of the country.

MR. DIMSDALE

wished for some definition of the phrase "apparently under a certain age."

MR. BRUCE

remarked that a similar clause had been in force for 30 years, and that he had never heard any complaint respecting it.

MR. T. E. SMITH

said, the Amendment would not prevent boys taking beer with them in their cans for their lunc-heons or dinners.

MR. FOTHERGILL

objected to any boy under 14 being allowed to drink in a public-house.

MR. DODSON

said, that unless the hon. Member who had just sat down was prepared to prove that no boy of 13 could be thirsty his remarks could have little weight. As the right hon. Gentleman had explained, it was sought by the Bill to extend to the country a clause in regard to the drinking of spirits by children which had been tried in the metropolis. Beyond this it was not desirable to go. He had heard an observation to the effect that the present House of Commons consisted of men who were considerably advanced in life, and he could not but think that the discussion on the proposed Amendment was good evidence of it. It was so long ago since some hon. Members were 14 years of age, that they could not recollect what their condition and feelings were at that time. He asked the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) to cast himself back, if he could, to the days when he was a boy in a public school, and recollect whether at that time, after handling a cricket-bat or pulling an oar, he never wanted to go to a public-house for a glass of beer.

MR. DIXON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that what was objected to was, not a boy taking a glass of beer, but taking it at a public-house, where he might fall into dangerous habits. He did not think that beer was necessary or useful to children of that age, and he did not believe that any child of his ever took beer at that age.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

thanked God he was not one of the sons of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was afraid they would not be much credit to him in the future. It must be tantalizing to the poor lads when the hon. Gentleman entertained his friends at his hospitable board, to find that they were not allowed to have any share in the good things which were served there. It was generally found that boys who were placed under such restrictions sought after that which was denied them, and obtained it by some means or other.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 129: Majority 69.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Sale to be by standard measure) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).

MR. WATNEY moved in page 3, line 41, after "every," to insert "licensed," for otherwise the bricklayer who made the intercommunication would be liable to the penalty, which ought to attach to a licensed person solely.

MR. BRUCE

explained that such had been the law in respect to public-houses in the metropolis for years past. The penalty would only attach to the licensed person.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that was perfectly correct; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this clause was retrospective, and he would suggest to him if he could not so modify it as to render it prospective, else it would harshly affect a large number of houses in the country which had halls of entertainment built out from them upon garden ground.

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that the clause as it stood dealt a heavy blow at vested interests in any communications that existed at the present moment.

MR. LOCKE

proposed to insert the words "after the passing of this Act."

MR. BRUCE

said, that would not have any effect, because the words would not have any practical operation until after the Act was passed.

MR. P. WYKEHAM-MARTIN

said, he knew plenty of rooms attached to and forming part of public-houses in the country in which audits and meetings of benefit societies had been held for the last 30 years. Were they now, he was desirous to know, to be held illegal?

MR. BRUCE

By no means. They are part of the licensed premises.

Amendment negatived.

MR. T. HUGHES moved in page 3, line 43, after "and," to insert "a music-hall or dancing-room, or," with a view of assimilating the law as regards music and dancing-halls in the country to the law on that subject in the metropolitan districts. Music and dancing were very good things in themselves; but attached to public-houses, experience had proved that they were highly objectionable. No harm could arise from compelling those establishments to take out a separate license.

MR. COLLINS

said, he entertained very serious doubts as to the working of the proposed Amendment. What, for instance, would happen in the case of the large hotels at Leamington or Cheltenham, where dancing went on every night? But strangers were not admitted.

MR. DODSON

said, that the hon. Member who had proposed the Amend- ment in the clause could hardly have given much consideration to the place at which he proposed to insert it. The clause, if amended as proposed, would render it absolutely penal to make or keep open a communication between the licensed premises and the music-hall, even though a special license might have been obtained for the purpose.

MR. T. HUGHES

said, he was willing to meet the suggestion by striking out "and" and inserting "or."

MR. DENT

said, that in the large hotels in the town which he represented (Scarborough) dancing probably took place every evening. If for so doing it was suggested that they should take out special licenses, the proposition would, in his opinion, prove inconvenient and unreasonable.

MR. BRUCE

said, that if the question raised by the Amendment were dealt with at all, it would require very full and careful handling, and not a mere passing reference in a clause. In the metropolis persons who wished to see music and dancing could easily go to buildings licensed for those special purposes. But the question was whether, if in a country place or small village, a harper struck up a tune, or a man sang a song and took money for doing so, he and a man in the room were to be punished. In towns liberty might easily degenerate into license, and it was right and proper to impose restrictions; but it was another thing to interfere in the country with the simple amusements of the people.

MR. D. DALRYMPLE

asked whether the hon. Member intended his Amendment to extend to Masonic halls? If so, in the interests of the noble craft, he protested against it. He should unquestionably vote against any provision which would hinder the brethren from passing from labour to refreshments.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, that one branch of this controversy—Music Halls v. Theatres—had occupied a Committee for six months. He deprecated the reopening of the question at 10.30 P.M. on the 23rd of July.

MR. T. HUGHES

said, he had no wish to interfere with the "free and accepted Masons;" but wherever music and dancing formed part of a recognized entertainment, then, he contended, there ought to be a license.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he was prepared to support the view of the hon. Member as far as dancing was concerned, and he had introduced a clause on the subject in his own Bill.

MR. HENLEY

said, the hon. and learned Member seemed to be desirous of attempting to set up a new system of licensing music and dancing rooms all over the country, which, if carried, would, in fact, interfere with the homely and innocent enjoyments of life. If when a party were met together in a friendly way they wished to have a dance or a song, why should they not have it? Why, he, for one, should be very sorry to see such an arbitrary and wholly uncalled for interference by Act of Parliament with the social pleasures and relaxations of the public. Would such an interference be tolerated in other classes who were in the habit of giving concerts and dancing parties in their own houses or grounds? He was surprised that the right hon. Baronet below him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should have lent his sanction to such a proposal, and for his own part he should, if it were pressed to a division, give an unhesitating vote against it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to completely misapprehend what he had stated. In the metropolitan area, and for 25 miles round it, there were at present legal regulations for the opening of music and dancing halls, and by his Bill he had sought to make these regulations applicable to the whole country. [Mr. HENLEY: It would be a great curse.] The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a great curse; but for his part he could not see why the regulations applicable to the area he had mentioned should not be made general. [Mr. HENLEY: Why not propose to do so at once?] That proposal would have necessitated a fuller consideration of many questions than could now be given, and though he sympathized with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Frome (Mr. T. Hughes), he did not think at the end of July, and with so many more important questions before them, they could satisfactorily deal with the subject. He should, therefore, recommend the withdrawal of the Amendment.

MR. CAWLEY

said, that in his own borough (Salford) they had an Act which was precisely similar to that for the metropolis, and, so far as he knew, it worked satisfactorily; but he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Member that if his Amendment were agreed to the effect would be to compel the application for a special license in every case; whereas at present there was no such necessity in the case of licensed houses for general purposes, and the practical effect would be to exclude houses which were now licensed.

MR. FOTHERGILL

strongly objected to the Amendment. In North Wales, with which he was connected, it was the custom, both in public-houses and beer-shops, to call in a harper. They were very fond of a little music and a dance, and it would be felt as a very great grievance indeed, if every landlord of a public-house were compelled to take out a 12 months' license before he could allow his customers to have their songs accompanied by a harp or an impromptu dance by the music of the country.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

confessed that his sympathies were with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. Hughes); but looking at the many important questions it involved, he should advise his hon. and learned Friend not to press his Amendment.

MR. T. HUGHES

, under the circumstances, said he would not ask the Committee to divide.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Illicit storing of liquor) agreed to.

Clause 11 (Publication of names of licensed persons) agreed to.

Offences against public order.

Clause 12 (Penalty on persons found drunk).

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, that he thought 10s. was not enough. He moved, as an Amendment, that the penalty be 40s., and that the imprisonment be a month instead of 10 days.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

would like to ask against whom this clause was particularly directed? To some people a fine of 10s. would be as nothing, and a penalty of 40s. would be equally unfelt. But it should be recollected that this Bill was directed more particularly against the working classes. ["No, no!"] Well, he did not suppose that the hon. Baronet who moved the increase of the penalty, or Members of that House, were likely to be found drunk on the highway; but it was very evident that a fine of 10s. imposed upon some persons would bear heavier than a fine of £100 upon a higher and wealthier class. In 99 cases out of 100, if working men were fined 10s. they would be sent to prison on account of being unable to pay.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, after the experience he had had in the county of Durham, where the penalty had been increased from 5s. to 10s., he must say that he had never known the slightest difficulty in the persons fined raising the 10s. In fact, the workmen were now earning £4 a week, and 10s. was a penalty they found no difficulty in paying. For that reason, he proposed the higher amount and the longer period of imprisonment.

SIR HENRY HOARE

objected to the proposal that a working man should be called upon to pay 400 per cent more than was now imposed in the case provided for by the clause. In fact, the Amendment was beside the direct object of the Bill, which was not so much aimed at the prevention of individual drunkenness as the suppression of a system to which they all objected. The working classes were not the only persons who over-indulged occasionally. If they took too much beer there were others who drank claret and stronger drinks and if these heavy penalties were to be imposed, he suggested that they should be confined to those who paid income tax.

MR. ASSHETON

thought that while 5s. was an inadequate fine, 40s. was too much, and suggested that 10s. was a fair medium.

MR. CANDLISH

suggested as a compromise that the maximum penalty should be 20s., instead of 40s., as proposed.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that a fine of 10s. in the agricultural districts would absorb, in many cases, a whole week's wages, and the lengthened period of imprisonment would inflict a great hardship. At the same time, there were reasons for thinking that 5s. was an inadequate penalty. If they were to have an Amendment in the clause, it ought to take the form of the alternative of imprisonment. Very often a fine of 5s. was no penalty at all, and the stocks had disappeared from their punishments. They had evidence that in Edinburgh, where the alternative of a day's imprisonment had been introduced, drunkenness had steadily decreased, and that was a strong reason in favour of introducing the alternative punishment of imprisonment.

SIR DAVID SALOMONS

said, he hoped that the Committee would not be led away by the idea that they could prevent drunkenness by severe penalties. No man went to a public-house deliberately to get drunk. Drunkenness was an accident; and it was not, therefore, by increasing the penalty that they could do away with it. Moral means were necessary to prevent men becoming drunk. He also wished to point out that the penalty with the costs varied. In London it was 5s., but in Tunbridge Wells it was 10s., and in the county of Sussex generally it was 12s. He believed they would do no good by increasing the penalties.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would stick to his proposition. It was an admirable one. The magistrates were not bound to inflict the full penalty; but it was very important that they should have power to inflict the heavier penalty of 40s. There was an Act whereby a man could now be fined 40s. if he was drunk and obstructing the highway.

MR. BRUCE

observed that one of the most difficult questions on which to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion was this question of repressing drunkenness by penalties. He was very far from saying that this clause was a satisfactory solution of the whole question, and that heavier penalties for repeated offences might not be followed by good results. He did not agree with the worthy Alderman behind him (Sir David Salomons) that these penalties produced no good. If he would read the evidence of the stipendiary magistrate at Sheffield, and other magistrates, given before the Committee which sat during this Session, he would find that the opinion at which they had arrived was that short terms of imprisonment would be deterrent. He thought, however, that for the first offence of the nature to which this section applied 10s. was sufficient. It was intended that this section should apply to persons found drunk on licensed premises, and therefore the great majority of persons on whom it would be inflicted would belong to the poorer—he would not say the working—classes. To them 10s., if they were to pay costs, would be a sufficient penalty. It was a subject for the consideration of the House whether in the case of repeated offences it would not be right to give the power to inflict a heavier punishment. He was bound to say, however, that he thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) went too far.

MR. COLLINS

said, he would not have risen if the hon. Baronet near him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had not referred to the stocks. He was bound to say that as a magistrate he had applied that punishment many times in the past, and he hoped to apply it many times again. He had himself offered persons their choice, and advised them that it was far better to stand in the stocks for two hours than to pay the penalty of 5s. He thought the fine proposed in the clause was quite enough, especially when in the next section it was proposed that persons, if guilty of riotous and disorderly conduct, should be liable to a fine of 40s.

MR. DODDS

said, that he came from the same county as the hon. Member for Boston, and he should like to know where the punishment of the stocks was inflicted. He himself did not know where it had been inflicted in recent years.

COLONEL GILPIN

concurred with the observations of the Home Secretary, and believed that, under the circumstances, 10s. was an amply sufficient penalty. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins), he had understood that the stocks, like the pillory, were excluded from the laws of the country.

MR. BROWN

suggested that for the first offence the penalty should be 10s.; for the second, 20s.; and for the third, 30s.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

should like to know from the hon. Member for Boston where the punishment of the stocks had been inflicted? ["Oh!"] It is all very well to cry "Oh, oh!" but they should see whether the old statute was still in force when the hon. Member declared so ostentatiously that he had inflicted this penalty.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

did not think the question before the Committee was the question of stocks. The question was whether for the future the penalty for drunkenness should be 10s. instead of 5s.; he himself thought it was quite a sufficient change to make in the law to raise the penalty to 10s.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that the question before the Committee was what ought to be the maximum penalty. They all knew very well that, as maximum penalties were very seldom imposed, if the maximum penalty was to be 10s., there would be very few cases in which it would be inflicted; and therefore when it was said that 10s. was the penalty imposed by this Bill, the statement was not accurate. They ought to give such a maximum as would be felt by any person on whom it was likely to be imposed, being well assured that it would be always reduced in proportion to the means of the person convicted. He thought that in dealing with a question of this sort it was better to adopt some reasonable penalty which magistrates might inflict at their discretion; and if the hon. Baronet (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) divided he should certainly support him. Penalties ought to be apportioned to the condition of the persons on whom they were inflicted. A fine of 10s. was a severe penalty on agricultural laborers; but there were classes above them who got drunk. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Hoare) said that "our class" got drunk. ["No!"]

SIR HENRY HOARE

I beg pardon. I did not say that our class was in the habit of getting drunk. What I said was that the working classes were not more guilty of drinking to excess than other classes.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that the hon. Baronet made the remark that we drank too much claret and champagne. There were classes who could well afford to pay a penalty of 20s., and if they wished to check drunkenness by this means they should have penalties appreciable by those on whom they were inflicted. A penalty of 10s. was nothing to an artizan who was making £2 or £3 a-week, because it was well known that these fines were paid by communities who combined for the defence of one another. ["Divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to desire to cram this Bill, like some other Bills, down their throats; but though he supported the Bill he would not permit it to be hustled through Committee without proper consideration. He thought that they should have a reasonable maximum penalty.

MR. BRUCE

said, it might shorten time if he put before the Committee the views of the Government with regard to the various Amendments on this clause. After considering all the evidence on the subject, he was of opinion that there would be an advantage in having a scale of punishment increasing with the increased number of offences At the same time, he could not go the length of the extreme severity of the Amendment; but he thought that they might so far adopt it as to provide an increased penalty for the second and third offences. He would propose to modify the Amendment of the hon. Baronet by introducing words imposing a penalty of 20s. for the second offence, and for the third offence, if committed within 12 months of the second, one month's imprisonment, with or without hard labour.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would allow magistrates some discretion.

MR. FOTHERGILL

said, that his experience convinced him that a penalty of 10s. would be quite sufficient to meet the justice of the case. When penalties were too heavy it often happened that they were not imposed. He was glad the Home Secretary stood by the 10s. penalty for the first offence.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

said, that the statement of the Home Secretary took away his breath, and he stood aghast at the proposition that a man should be sent to prison for taking a glass too much three times a year. When the Bill was introduced, he thought it would be very difficult to make men moral by Act of Parliament; but after this discussion he considered it hopeless. The first proposition of the right hon. Gentleman was reasonable enough, and he implored him not to go further, pointing out that the effect of putting a drunkard in prison for a month would be to throw his wife and children on the parish for that time, and thus punish the innocent ratepayers. The Bill was a mild and moderate one, and was acceptable to the trade and the public; but he was surprised that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) should propose to revive the odious and barbarous punishment of the stocks. They ought not to treat men who took a glass too much like convicted thieves.

MR. BRUCE

said, he was anxious not to be misunderstood. As regarded the punishment of the ratepayers, if the Bill would not prevent drunkenness it would do nothing, and if it did it would certainly diminish the rates. Whether drunkenness was a crime or not, undoubtedly it was a grave offence, and one for which the wives and children of drunkards now suffered the penalty. It was a fearful parent of vice and crime, and he thought that if a man were three times convicted for such an offence it was a proof that fining him was no good, and that he should be sent to prison. His belief was that that the infliction of such a penalty would diminish rather than increase the rates, put an end to a great deal of human suffering, and raise the tone of public morality.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

referred to the experience of Scotland, where an Act passed in 1862, imposing a fine of 5s., or 24 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness in the streets, produced a steady decrease in the number of convictions.

MR. DENT

thought the views of the Government deserved approval.

MR. HENLEY

asked what would be the result of making the penalties too heavy? By increasing the penalties they would have fewer convictions. "Being drunk" was a very elastic term, indeed; and witnesses would give very different evidence with regard to offences visited by a low penalty from what they would give where the penalty was heavy. And where the penalties had a high range, there must be an appeal, in which the Judges would have to decide what was "being drunk." Again, how were the repeated convictions to be proved? He wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these points.

MR. BRUCE

said, it must be recollected that all these penalties were optional; the magistrate was not bound to inflict them, but had the power to do so if he thought the case required it. The offences must take place within the year; they would be in the same locality; and the justices would have full knowledge of all the circumstances.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the point they were discussing. The Bill imposed a penalty not exceeding 10s. on any person found drunk, upon which an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) to make it 40s. In addition to that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department proposed various cumulative penalties: A man shall be fined for being drunk, and on the second offence that fine shall be doubled. But that was not all, for on a conviction for a third offence the party shall be liable to be sent to prison for a given period, with or without hard labour. Now, such a penalty as that was, in his opinion, too severe. ["Question!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "That 10s. stand part of the clause."

COLONEL BERESFORD

asked the Home Secretary, whether he would not allow an alternative of seven days with a fine instead of 14 days' imprisonment? It might be a positive kindness to a working man to have seven days' imprisonment with a fine of 10s., instead of 14 days without a fine.

Amendment (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) negatived.

MR. DENT

then proposed, page 4, line 34, to insert— Every person who shall be convicted of drunkenness under this section within a period of 12 months, shall on the second conviction be liable to a penalty of 20s., and for a third or subsequent offence to a penalty of 40s., or at the discretion of the magistrate to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding one month.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE moved to insert the words "and including costs." Now, it so happened that in the City of London no costs were ever added to penalties; and it was for the purpose of determining what they were that he wished to have these words inserted.

MR. LOCKE

was surprised to hear the proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to add imprisonment to the penalties inflicted by the Bill. When they saw the sentences which were frequently passed he certainly objected to give to magistrates the power of sending a man who might be in every regard respectable to gaol, and giving him a month's hard labour because he happened to be intemperate. It was quite possible, too, that the magistrate might be a man of a peculiar nature. He could pick out many in that House—men whom he would not trust to look after the character of a cat, much less of a human being. And it was to such men that it was proposed to give the power of sending a man to prison with hard labour, and to mix with the greatest vagabonds in the country, for a trivial offence which was altogether disproportioned to such punishment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the laxity he had displayed in yielding to suggestions, and not bind himself up in this proposal of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). Ten shillings was a large fine for a poor man, and he hoped it would be rejected. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand by his first intentions and discountenances those cruel and fantastical propositions.

MR. DENT

thought that no magistrate would send a man to prison with hard labour for a month without the option of a fine unless he believed that the accused was a confirmed drunkard.

MR. GREGORY

said, that this was a serious matter. By thus sending a man to prison and giving him a month's hard labour they might be, in fact, ruining him for life. They knew there were men who took peculiar views on the subject of drinking, and that such men, if armed with the power, would be too ready to convict and send to prison a man brought before them on such a charge. It did not follow, moreover, if the charge were proved, that the man was not a good father, and otherwise respectable. The Committee should remember, too, that the poor man's stomach was too frequently not in a state to enable him to withstand the effect of strong drink. He went through a great deal of toil, and a little drink took great effect on him. He hoped such a law would not be passed.

MR. FOTHERGILL

objected most strenuously to the proposition that a man should be imprisoned for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He knew a man for whom he had the highest respect, and to whom he would have entrusted his life. That man, however, unfortunately gave way occasionally to intemperance, and to have to give such a man a month's hard labour would to him be most revolting. And he had known many such cases. The proposed legislation was all a mistake and he should vote against it if it was persisted in.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the Committee that the question of imprisonment was not then before them.

MR. MUNTZ

said, the Committee were now legislating upon a weakness of human nature, and not upon a crime. He was old enough to remember the time when it was fashionable for gentlemen to get drunk in the afternoon, and he thought it would be monstrous to make a man associate with felons, thieves, and vagabonds for a month because he had been drunk three times in a year. He hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he observed that, following these clauses, three pages were devoted to clauses against adulteration, and in the schedule the ingredients were set forth which would have the property of causing or increasing intoxication. Now, until they had settled those clauses it seemed to him that they should not set about enforcing penalties against a person for an offence which perhaps was not his own, but was due to liquor which, they admitted, might be very bad and deleterious, because they took so many precautions to endeavour to ensure its being wholesome. He thought they would limit the penalty in the first instance to 10s., as in the Bill, and afterwards, when it was in full operation in all its parts, they might visit offenders with the full penalty.

MR. BRUCE

observed that, presuming the House to be desirous of passing a Licensing Bill, he must ask the Committee to deal only with the Amendment. He sympathized with his hon. Friend (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) in the objection he took as to the levying of costs; but next year he hoped to offer for the acceptance of the House a measure for paying the clerks of Justices by salaries, and not by fees. If his hon. Friend objected to 20s., he had better try to reduce the amount.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the Bill as originally framed, and would not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). He should press his Amendment to a division and whether it was accepted or not, he should oppose the original Amendment, because he objected to a cumulative penalty.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

hoped the hon. Member for the City would not divide the Committee, and urged upon the Committee the great inconvenience of legislating upon a very general subject for one particular case. Having acted many years as a magistrate, he felt quite as much as the hon. Alderman opposite the injustice of inflicting a much heavier penalty by way of costs than the magistrate desired to inflict.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

hoped the Committee would not allow such an Amendment as that before the Committee to disfigure the Bill. It was totally at variance with all that had been done in the other House, and yet he understood that Government would accept it. If it were carried it would make a conference with the other House necessary, and that House might disagree with it. It would subject a man to penal servitude for a month for the simple fact of getting drunk. Such conduct would bring contempt on the legislation of Parliament, and lead the people to believe that the Government could not make up their mind. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) negatived.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he understood that the Government were prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Dent). If that were so, he thought the Committee ought at once to report Progress. He was surprised at their assenting to such a proposal after the Bill had passed through the other House in a milder shape. The proposed change in the penalty for drunkenness would be repugnant to the feelings of the country. Surely they would not put a drunken man in the position of a convicted felon? As it had been pointed out, a drunken man was now doubly liable—both for being drunk, and for any mischief he might cause whilst in that state.

MR. COLLINS moved to amend the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Dent) by striking out the words relating to imprisonment, and confining it to the cumulative penalties.

MR. DENT

expressed his readiness to accept that modification of the Amendment.

MR. GOLDSMID

thought it would be better to adhere to the terms of the Bill. It was not so very long since it was a gentlemanly thing to get drunk at least once or twice a-week, and, therefore, he thought they should not bear so very hard upon the lower classes, who, of late years, had manifested much improvement. He would wish to see the Government rely more on the good sense of the people themselves than on a system of cumulative fines for the repression of drunkenness, and he hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to the Bill.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

thought it was sound advice to adhere to the Bill as passed through the other House by the Government. The reasons which induced the Committee, half an hour ago, to reject the Amendment of the junior Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) would justify the Committee in rejecting the Amendment now proposed by the senior Member (Mr. Dent). They would do well to reject the Amendment even in the mitigated form in which the hon. Member now proposed to submit it.

MR. COLLINS

protested against the doctrine that they were to accept én bloc whatever was sent down from "another place" without giving it any consideration.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

observed that that was not the question at all. It was, whether the Government having passed the Bill through the House of Lords in a form acceptable to themselves should now alter it?

Words relating to imprisonment struck out of the Amendment.

Amendment, as amended, proposed, In page 4, line 34, after the words "ten shillings," to add the words "and on a second conviction within a period of twelve months shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty shillings, and on a third or subsequent conviction within such period of twelve months be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 141: Majority 41.

COLONEL GILPIN

, seeing that the Government had adopted a very important Amendment and that there was other important business on the Paper, considered it his duty to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.

MR. BRUCE

hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not press a Motion which would interfere with and mar the progress of the Bill. The Government had adopted the Amendment because it was not an unreasonable one. Was it, he asked, to be understood that under no circumstances whatever the Government was to accept an Amendment? Surely, if a Bill of this importance was to be conducted in a manner that would be satisfactory to the Committee of the House, it was the duty of the Government to give the proposals of hon. Members fair consideration.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

supported the Motion for reporting Progress, and complained of the Government for having essentially departed from the arrangement of the Bill as originally prepared by the Home Office.

MR. WHITBREAD

expressed a hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his Motion. He was quite sure that if they were to go on with Motions to report Progress, that they would make but very little progress indeed with the Bill.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the adoption of the Amendment referred to by the hon. and gallant Member made no change in the structure or character of the Bill. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion to report Progress, and that he would allow the Bill to be proceeded with. The hon. and gallant Member was probably influenced by his strong sympathy for another Bill—the Military Forces Localization (Expenses); but if they were now to report Progress, it would not be possible to proceed with that Bill that night.

COLONEL GILPIN

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had an Amendment relating to persons in a state of drunkenness on the highway and in possession of firearms. He, on reflection, considered the term "highway" not sufficiently large, and he therefore moved after the word "highway," page 4, line 37, to insert "road or thoroughfare;" and in line 38, after the word "engine," to insert— or who is drank when in possession of any firearms or other dangerous weapons, shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness and ma be apprehended, and.

MR. BRUCE

admitted that a person drunk and in possession of firearms might be regarded as dangerous, and if the Amendment, were in possession of "loaded" firearms, he should have no objection to it.

MR. W. M. TORRENS

asked how it was possible for any person to know whether the firearms were loaded or not?

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, penalties had been provided years ago to meet such a case, and had been imposed. He thought the Committee ought to reject much that was in the Bill.

MR. BRUCE

said, the proposition now made a second time was that the Government were bound to produce a Bill which should be altogether incapable of amendment. He could not concur in that. Nor could he altogether oppose the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), since he was in the habit of receiving constant communications from the Judges of the dangers resulting from drunken persons carrying firearms.

MR. GREGORY

was at a loss to know what the incidence of drunkenness was, and particularly of "aggravated" drunkenness.

MR. COLLINS

said, he certainly did not know what "aggravated drunkenness" was. He could not agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth) in his idea that the Committee ought to reject some of the clauses én bloc. In his (Mr. Collins's) opinion the Committee might leave out all the words after "aggravated drunkenness."

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

said, the Bill had come down from the other House, and it was in all respects a very strong measure. The complainst against the Government was, not that they pressed it, but that they really did not appear to know their own minds, and particularly upon this monstrous clause.

After a few words from Mr. BRUCE,

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he would act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and omit from his Amendment the words "or other dangerous weapons shall be guilty of aggravated drunkenness."

Words omitted.

MR. HENLEY

observed that the words "or other dangerous weapons" were a very wide description indeed to entail the penalty for what was called "aggravated drunkenness."

Amendment amended, and agreed to, as follows:—"Or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearm may be apprehended, and."

MR. MUNTZ moved, in line 39, after "shilling," to leave out to end of clause. As the clause stood, he said any man riding home might be liable, on the information of a policeman, at the discretion of the magistrate to be sent to the House of Correction for a month. The object of his Amendment was to do away with that discretion.

MR. BRUCE

defended the clause. There might occasionally be cases in which magistrates might not use discreetly the powers entrusted to them; but the clause was intended broadly to deal with a class of serious offences, and it was right to take ample power for dealing with them.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

hoped the Committee would support the proposal of the Government, as the Amendment was entirely framed in favour of the rich man.

MR. MUNTZ

said, it was not in favour of the rich man; but, on the contrary, was in favour of the poor one.

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, that many accidents arose from persons driving vehicles while drunk, and he therefore supported the clause as it stood.

Amendment negatived.

On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"

MR. KNIGHT

said, that he must take the sense of the Committee upon this clause. He regarded it as one of the most tyrannical ever inserted in an Act of Parliament. Any man who was driving, and was said to be in the slightest degree drunk, was liable to be put in prison for a month. He could not see anything that would work more hardly on the poorer classes, and he could not allow it to pass.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

supported the views of the hon. Member, and said that he regarded the clause as unnecessarily severe.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 49: Majority 170.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).

MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 5, line 10, after "or," to insert "knowingly."

MR. BRUCE

said, he would accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WATNEY moved, in page 5, line 10, after "section," insert "other than a first offence."

MR. BRUCE

said, he considered the offence dealt with in the clause one of the most serious nature, and he could not in any degree permit its severity to be relaxed.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BARCLAY moved, in line 11, after "convicted," to insert "if the convicting justice shall so order." He thought the time had come when some discretion should be given to the magistrates. If the power which he advocated were not granted, their dignity would, in his opinion, be much lowered. He was anxious that full penalties should be imposed; but unless they were anxious to ruin the licensed victuallers some liberty of action ought to be left in the hands of the magistrates. This endorsement of licenses was a very serious matter. If the magistrates were armed with discretionary powers he believed they would most carefully exercise them.

MR. RATHBONE

hoped the Government would not consent to any relaxation of the clause as it stood in the Bill. They were sanctioning an extension of enormously increased powers to the licensed victuallers, and the only excuse for giving them any monopoly was security for public order and morality. Nothing should he left to the discretion of magistrates in matters of this kind. In the earlier clauses of the Bill they had been heaping penalties on poor drunkards, giving the magistrates no discretion; but when they came to deal with a powerful body of men a different principle was endeavoured to be introduced. He looked upon the record of all convictions on the license for offences connected with drunkenness as one of the vital points of the Bill, and he sincerely hoped it would not be surrendered.

MR. LOCKE

, after calling the attention of the Committee to the wording of the clause, which he had given Notice of his intention to amend in the same manner as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barclay), said, that in a case of this kind it was quite obvious there ought to be power in the magistrates to act as they thought best according to circumstances. It was sometimes impossible to prevent drunken people entering a man's house—a policeman might enter, and a disturbance occur, the "licensed person" doing all he could to preserve order, and yet he might be unable to convince the magistrate that there was no blame on his part. A great deal was left in the Bill to the magistrates as regarded the measure of punishment to be inflicted, and he maintained that there ought to be similar discretionary power in respect of the recording of convictions on licenses. The words proposed to be inserted in the clause were only right and proper, and he should vote for their insertion.

MR. MELLY

thought that if a man knowingly permitted drunkenness or violence in his house, he would commit a very grave offence, and there ought to be no discretion in the case.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, that the offence named in the clause might be proved against a publican though he was in no degree to blame. That was one reason why he favoured giving magistrates power to act discretionally in connection with the record of convictions. Then, again, they must all see that when the penalty was increased to the extent of endorsement on the license, conviction would become more difficult. It was well known that, generally speaking, the duties of licensed victuallers in the proper management of their houses were very severe indeed. Did any hon. Gentleman really know the trials and temptations to which a licensed victualler was often exposed? He must have a good temper; he must exercise the severest self-control, or he might peril his property at any moment. Take a man, or a parcel of men walking into his house, already mischievously drunk, and they demand to be served. If he refuse—and most probably he will—his barman, or barmaid, or himself is assaulted probably; and if what is called a "row" takes place the police come in, and it will be a most difficult thing for him to prove that he was not guilty of riotous behaviour. That was one of the cases where the discretion of a magistrate would be properly exercised, and he, therefore, hoped his hon. Friend's Amendment would be adopted by the Committee.

MR. BRUCE

regarded this as one of the most important provisions of the Bill, and hoped the Committee would support the Bill as it stood. The object was to secure improved order, and the great cause of disorder was knowingly permitting drunkenness. The publican did not run any risk of unjust conviction, and the public had a right to insist that every necessary security should be taken for the proper conduct of a business which was undoubtedly a valuable monopoly.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, in view of the heavy nature of the penalties, it would be far better to give the justices discretion as to whether, on a conviction, they would take the first step towards the canceling of the licenses.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

wished to know if a licensed person was to be answerable for the acts or conduct of his servants? Because, if not, all he had to do was to go away from his house and allow them to do what they pleased. It seemed to him, looking at the whole case, that the magistrates ought to have discretion in such cases, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

MR. STRAIGHT

had some experience in matters of this description, and believed there would be found the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining a conviction at all. He thought there would be the greatest difficulty in getting magistrates to convict if the penalty were made so heavy, especially in very numerous cases in which they would feel that the evidence was just sufficient to warrant a conviction. He hoped the Amendment would be pushed to a division.

MR. FOTHERGILL

pointed out that a landlord was liable to be convicted for suffering quarrelsome conduct; but what was "quarrelsome conduct?" He thought he had witnessed scenes in the House in which the occupants of the Treasury bench might be charged with quarrelsome conduct. And then, on whose evidence were parties to be con- victed? Nothing had been said about the police as yet; but he knew a great deal about policemen in reference to public-houses. It was known to many others that many policemen never paid for the drink they swallowed, and that publicans who insisted on policemen paying for their drink were always in hot water. Yet it was upon the evidence of the police that magistrates were to decide. Now, that was a very serious state of circumstances; but all that was asked was, that the magistrates should be allowed the option of not recording offences under that section.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to call attention to the effect of recording the offence a certain number of times. As regarded the tenant, he would not have his license for five years. The consequence to the landlord was much more serious, because if those convictions were recorded the premises might lose their license for two years—"if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so think fit to order." Then, if magistrates were to have discretion in a great matter like that, why should it be refused to them in trifling ones?

MR. RATHBONE

expressed his belief that the House would insist upon it that the owner of premises who had not taken proper pains to ensure that his house should be regularly conducted should be punished. The hon. Member for London had hit a great blot in the Bill, and that was the word "knowingly." If after having brought the fact of conviction home two or three times to a person, it was not to tell against him for serious punishment, they might as well throw the Bill into the fire.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

suggested that the provision of the clause should be "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."

MR. BRUCE

said, that the provision in the Bill was necessary from the peculiar nature of the monopoly which had been created for this trade. Magistrates hesitated to exercise the power with which they were armed by several Acts for taking away a license on a third offence. It was rarely they did exercise the power, and therefore, in the interests of society, they were justified in selecting a few offences under the Bill, and saying that in such cases the action of the magistrates should be compulsory.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

then moved to substitute "unless" for "if."

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he could not allow the last statement of the Home Secretary to pass unchallenged. He could himself speak for the magistrates of Middlesex and of the City of London that they had never shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses when necessary, and afterwards application to obtain the licenses so refused had been made to the Lord Chamberlain, and by him granted. He should support the Amendment, which he hoped would be pressed to a division.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that the statement of the Home Secretary was strong, and he believed unjustifiable. The magistrates had not shrunk from the duty of taking away licenses, but the truth was they were rarely called upon to do so. It was against beerhouses and not against houses licensed by the magistrates that they had to proceed in that manner.

MR. BRUCE

hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kent would be withdrawn in order that the Committee might divide on the main question.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he felt so strongly on this point that he must press his Amendment.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought these words were necessary in order to make the Bill consistent with itself. It gave the magistrates discretion with respect to the period during which the House might be deprived of a license, and they ought also to have discretion with respect to the penalty to be inflicted.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

hoped the hon. Member for Kent would proceed with his Amendment, for he feared the Government were going so far that the magistrates would not convict.

Amendment, as amended, proposed, in page 5, line 11, after the word "convicted," to insert the words "unless the convicting justice shall order to the contrary."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 123: Majority 30.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.