COMMITTEE. [Progress 23rd July.]

HC Deb 26 July 1872 vol 212 cc1888-919

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Offences against Public Order.

Clause 14 (Penalty for keeping disorderly house).

MR. CAWLEY moved, in line 12, to leave out the word "knowingly." He objected to the word "knowingly" on the ground that it would have the effect of introducing a means by which the clause could be evaded. To make the clause clear, therefore, he would move that the word be omitted. One of the objects of the clause was, that no improper use should be made of the premises, and the omission of the word to which he objected was, therefore, of great importance to carrying out the object which the framers of the Bill had in view.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that if the word "knowingly" remained in the clause, it would only be for every licensed victualler to avoid making any inquiries in order to evade the penalties. If, however, the word were struck out the publican's interest would lie in the opposite direction, and he would then be most anxious to know whether his customers were of the class referred to in the clause, and would be induced to use the greatest circumspection in the management of the house.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

considered that the clause should be left as it stood, because it was not intended to impose penalties beyond the ordinary intention of Acts of Parliament. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that publicans would be clearly liable for the acts of their servants.

MR. BRUCE

contended that the word "knowingly" was always inserted in Acts of Parliament where "wilfully" was intended. He had had repeated communications with police magistrates during the last three years, and they had never suggested that any difficulty arose from the word "knowingly" being inserted in an Act of Parliament. He felt satisfied that if persons belonging to the unfortunate class were in the habit of going to the house of a publican, and that they were known to the servants of the publican as prostitutes, that knowledge would be sufficient to implicate the master. Considering, too, the severity of the penalty, he thought the word should in all cases be retained.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MUNTZ moved, in line 13, to leave out the word "reputed," because it gave the opportunity to policemen to insult respectable females. A woman was either a prostitute or she was not one; but the decision upon that point ought not to be left to the discretion of the police.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 13, to leave out the word "reputed."—(Mr. Muntz.)

SIR HENRY HOARE

said, he should support the Amendment, and he did so because if the word "reputed," as applied to prostitutes, was allowed to remain in the clause, it would place more power in the hands of magistrates and the police than they had at present, and that, he thought, was undesirable.

MR. FOTHERGILL

also supported the Amendment. He was not one of those who always abused the police, and he thought that the police, as a rule, did their duty very well; but they were only human, and therefore liable to the frailties of mankind, and he was not in favour of trusting too much to their discretion. Very serious annoyances might occur, in consequence of young and inexperienced policemen assuming on authority that they ought not to possess.

MR. HENLEY

thought that if the word was struck out it would be very difficult to get any convictions at all without proving cases of actual prostitution, and it would not be desirable to do that. The clause, in his opinion, as drawn by the Government was much the best, and he had no doubt that if the clause were allowed to remain as it was, it would work fairly for all parties, for the police, who were always careful in these matters, would take care to be possessed of very good knowledge before they interfered with any respectable person's freedom.

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not accept the Amendment, for the reason that no clause in this Bill had given the Government more trouble to prepare, and they considered they were fully justified in inserting the word "reputed," as it would give an immensity of trouble if on every occasion the police had positively to prove that the person was a veritable prostitute; but "reputed" was well understood both by magistrates and police, and existed in several criminal Acts of Parliament.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

opposed the retention of the word "reputed" in this clause. He would like to know what the exact meaning and intention of the clause was. If a woman was disorderly in a public-house and annoyed other quiet customers by her conduct, the provisions of the Bill would apply to her as well as to other disorderly persons, and she ought not to be allowed to remain there; but if she was orderly the use of the word "reputed" would be no reason for expelling her, or subjecting the keeper of the public-house to a fine, simply because she was a customer. The clause as it stood was alike unjust to the customer and the licensed victualler, who, in the majority of cases, could have no knowledge whatever of the fact whether a female customer at his bar was, or was not, a "reputed" prostitute.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

hoped the Committee would strike out the word "reputed." If it was retained it would enable the police to take up any women they pleased, on the pretext that they were "reputed" prostitutes; and any conviction subjected the licensed victualler to a fine of £10 for the first, and £20 for the second conviction, which, with other endorsements on the license, might lead to a forfeiture of the license. How was a licensed victualler to know whether a casual customer was a "reputed" prostitute or not? Yet if he did not, and the police under this clause secured a conviction, he would be liable to one of those cumulative penalties which would exhaust a fortune and lead to wholesale confiscation. It was a penal clause so far as the word "reputed" was concerned, and he should divide with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz).

MR. CANDLISH

said, if the word was struck out of the clause there would be extremely little left of it. A licensed victualler could not know whether of all the customers who entered his house, some were "reputed" prostitutes or not. They ought not to throw the onus upon him in such a case, and if the word was struck out the clause would be entirely useless.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in inserting this clause was perfectly clear. He wished to draw a distinction between well-known brothels—houses where women of the unfortunate class habitually assembled—and those houses which "reputed" persons of that class occasionally frequented, and to discourage the licensed victuallers from supplying such customers.

MR. LOCKE

asked what was the meaning to be attached to the words "reputed prostitute?" Did "reputed" mean that women were habitually, or only occasionally, to be classed under that name? If the former, the word "reputed" ought not to be introduced in the clause. It was unmeaning and unnecessary. If the latter, it gave the police a power which he should be very sorry to entrust them with. Some women might be the most amiable creatures in the world, but if somebody chose to give them a bad name, and a policeman—a serious policeman—saw such a woman, a well-dressed woman, coming out of a public-house, he might be possessed by the notion that, because she was clothed in showy raiment, she was a "reputed," not an habitual prostitute, and subject to the police supervision and interference authorized by this clause. Surely there should be some evidence, some facts to go upon, before a licensed victualler was taken before a magistrate to answer a charge under this clause. He thought the word dangerous, and should vote for its omission.

MR. BRUCE

said, the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) did not touch this clause at all, nor the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). The clause was in fact meant to draw a broad distinction between houses known to be brothels and houses only occasionally frequented by persons of whose "reputed" character evidence would have to be given before the magistrate, which could leave no doubt in the mind of any reasonable person—such as soliciting in the streets, being seen coming out of houses of ill-fame, and so on. No practical difficulty whatever could arise from the presence of the word "reputed" in the clause.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he was extremely sorry to divide the Committee upon the subject; but his own experience on the bench as a magistrate at Birmingham had shown him that women could be charged by the police as being "reputed" prostitutes, when, to his own knowledge, they were respectable married women.

MR. DODSON

said, hard cases made bad laws, and the instances which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham from his own experience, should not induce the Committee to strike out an important word from a practical clause. There was a somewhat similar provision to this in the Prevention of Crime Act, which was passed last year. In that Act there was a clause making it penal to harbour thieves or reputed thieves, and he was not aware that any difficulty had arisen through the operation of the clause.

MR. MELLOR

said, as a magistrate at Ashton he had had similar experience to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he should therefore vote for the omission of the word "reputed."

MR. RUSSELL GURNEY

said, that neither the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, nor the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) had informed the Committee as to what decision the magistrates gave in the cases they had referred to.

SIR HENRY HOARE

said, he had been reminded, and he therefore wished to remind the Committee, that the reputation of a woman was more easily attacked and less easily defended than that of a man, particularly when it was dishonesty of which the man was accused.

MR. CHARLEY

wished to point out to the Home Secretary, that if a woman were seen soliciting in the streets, there could be no doubt that she was a real and not a reputed prostitute.

DR. BREWER

hoped the word "reputed" would be retained, or otherwise the most objectionable practices would be resorted to in order to prove actual prostitution.

Question put, "That the word 'reputed' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 35: Majority 126.

MR. WATNEY

said, he desired to exempt the licensed person under this clause from penalty, unless he allowed prostitutes to remain longer than necessary to obtain refreshment. This 14th clause must be taken in connection with the following, which imposed a penalty for permitting premises to be used as a brothel. He thought the former clause open to great misconstruction, as it must be taken to mean that if a woman went into a public-house not for the purpose of pursuing her calling, but simply in order to obtain refreshment, the publican would be subjected to a heavy penalty. In London it had been decided that women, whatever their character, had a perfect right to go into a public-house and obtain the necessary refreshment. With a view to bring the clause into unison with that practice, he would move as an Amendment, in line 13, after the word "prostitutes," the insertion of the words, "providing that he allows them to remain longer than necessary to obtain refreshment."

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he had an Amendment upon the Paper upon the same subject, and he feared that the adoption of the words under notice would practically defeat the object of the clause. His opinion was that the clause, as now worded, would carry out the object of the Government; but as it would be liable to be misinterpreted occasionally, he should presently propose to amend it in such a way as not to destroy the vitality of the first part of the clause.

MR. FOTHERGILL

said, that however painful it might be to hon. Members to argue the case of these poor unfortunate women, it must after all be remembered that prostitutes were human beings, and how were they to obtain refreshments, if not in public-houses? Some pity should be shown them. In his opinion the whole tone of this legislation was very cruel.

MR. MELLY

said, the last speaker, who resided at Merthyr Tydvil, could hardly be expected to perceive the object and meaning of the clause to which the people of Liverpool attached the utmost importance. In that town prostitutes habitually congregated in public-houses for the purpose of carrying on their trade. As a Liverpool magistrate he had had on six or seven occasions to commit publicans; but the convictions were over- ruled, on the ground that the parties met together for the purpose of refreshment. Placards were put up to this effect—"No lady can come here who does not buy a sandwich and glass of beer, and no one can stay more than ten minutes." In consequence of that notification it was impossible to convict. He should be the last man to prevent these unfortunate women from obtaining refreshment in any licensed victualler's house; but the object of the clause was to prevent the habitual gathering together of prostitutes. The Government had introduced words in the clause to meet the necessities of the case, because it was exceedingly difficult to prove the offence of prostitution. Everyone knew what took place. They saw people going away in cabs, and they perfectly well knew what was their object. If the Committee were in any way to alter this clause it would be valueless.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, he did not, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Fothergill), feel that it was difficult or unpleasant to speak on behalf of any class of Her Majesty's subjects. He thought that these unfortunate women were as much entitled to the just consideration of the House of Commons as any other class, and he entirely declined to be bound by the Liverpool experience of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly). If there had been any town which had done harm to this question, it had been the town of Liverpool. It first went into the violent extreme of Free Trade, and now it was going into the violent injustice of restriction. They had established an unfortunate example in one direction, and it seemed that their policy was equally unfortunate in the other. He protested against the whole framework of this clause. He should like to know what was a "reputed prostitute." A woman was either a prostitute or not, and he protested against such language as that employed in this clause. It provided that any licensed person who knowingly permitted his house to be the habitual resort and place of meeting of reputed prostitutes was liable to be convicted. If a person came into his house and took refreshment, and somebody said that the person was a reputed prostitute, the man was to have a conviction recorded against him. ["No!" An hon. MEMBER: Habitual resort.] Supposing a woman came in every day—and why should she not? The hon. Member for Stoke said that the women were suffered to solicit. In that case the object was prostitution, an offence which had been dealt with in a separate clause; and therefore it was perfectly plain that the words which had been put in, excluded the notion that the object was prostitution. But whatever the object of the words, they seemed to him unjust, and therefore he should vote against them.

MR. BRUCE

said, that the words of the existing law were—"knowingly permitting and suffering persons of notoriously bad character to assemble and meet together." Nothing was said about their meeting for the purposes of prostitution, or prosecuting their vocation; but the Judges had put that gloss upon the clause. The result was, that this city and other cities abounded in places where these women congregated for the purposes of their immoral and most injurious vocation, and under the circumstances the law was utterly incompetent to deal with them. He had had deputation after deputation from the inhabitants of certain parts of London, complaining of the state of the law, and calling upon the Government to take the requisite means to amend it. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to introduce words to negative the construction put upon the Act by the Judges; and it was for that purpose that these words were inserted, and they must trust to the discretion of the magistrates who had to enforce the law. The difficulties of proving that women were met for prostitution were great and almost insuperable, and the clause in the existing Act, which was intended to preserve public morals and public decency, had been totally ineffective; and if these words were inserted, the present clause would be ineffective for the purpose also. No doubt, the clause might lead to occasional hardship; but the question for the Committee to decide in this, as in many other cases was, whether, in the interests of public morality, order, and decency, they would run the risk of inflicting an occasional hardship, which in this case would simply be a refusal of refreshment, which might tend to throw an obstacle in way of these women pursuing their miserable trade. If the words to which objection had been taken by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) were left out, the clause would be utterly useless, and the scandalous and disgraceful scences which were now going on in this and in many other towns must continue.

MR. J. LOWTHER

wished to point out to the Committee that the unfortunate class with whose rights and privileges they were now dealing were not the only class concerned. The public-house keeper was placed in a position of serious responsibility. This clause was governed by Clause 18, which defined the class of persons whom the landlord might turn out and refuse refreshment. He might refuse to admit any person who was Drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, and any person whose presence on his premises would subject him to a penalty under the Act. If, therefore, the attention of the publican was drawn to the presence of one of these persons, it was a question whether or not under Clause 18 he had power to turn her out. He (Mr. Lowther) believed that he had no such power, but at the same time should like to know whether his license would be jeopardized if he did not do so. It would be said, no doubt, that a mere isolated case would not be sufficient, and that the penalty would only be imposed when the same house was habitually resorted to. But everything must have a beginning, and at what stage was the public-house keeper to exercise the duty thus cast upon him by statute, of deciding as to the quality of his customers, and of stamping with his own ipse dixit a woman as of infamous reputation. Could there be anything more monstrous than a public-house keeper thus constituting himself a judge of the mode of life of his customers, and was it not a nice position to place a licensed victualler in?

MR. BRUCE

He has that power under the existing law.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he understood this to be a Bill for improving the law, and not for stereotyping a monstrous abuse.

MR. BRUCE

The publican is forbidden by the existing law to allow persons of notoriously bad character to assemble in his house, and he is responsible for knowing what their true character is.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman, from his own point of view, was simply stereotyping what must be admitted to be a monstrous abuse of the existing system. He hoped the Committee would consider whether they were justified in imposing this duty on the publican. They were constituting him a judge of what he could not by any possibility know; and he wanted to know what protection would be given to him against actions for defamation of character? It was of no use talking about reputed thieves. A record of convictions for thieving was kept, and no policeman would tell a publican that a man was a reputed thief, unless it could be proved by the record; but here, the public-house keeper was to be left to his own unaided judgment. He would suggest that the words proposed should be added to the clause, and that then the clause should be struck out.

MR. WHITBREAD

observed that no persons were more interested than those engaged in the trade in removing all complaint against it on the ground of decency and order. The clause, in his opinion, was one which imposed penalties on licensed victuallers for acts of which they might know nothing. It was admittedly a question of degree and certainty. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department admitted that it was not an offence to give refreshment to these unfortunate women, who might require it from day to day, for the very sustainment of life. Then, where was the line to be drawn? He (Mr. Whitbread) admitted that in some parts of London there were houses which required a careful supervision, but that was a question entirely for the discretion of the local magistrates—a discretion which was, in his opinion, mischievously taken away by the provisions of the Bill. The result of that was, the difficulty in which they now found themselves. That women even of the unfortunate class alluded to should be supplied with refreshment once or twice—nay, three or four times a-day if they wished it, was admitted. But where was the permission to stop? Where were the local magistrates to draw the line in cases of this kind, where the offence was not under the control of the licensed victuallers? They could only convict in cases where public scandal was given, for they must, on the one hand, allow these women to have refreshments, or turn them out altogether. He himself believed the better course would be to leave such cases to be decided by the discretion of the magistrates, who would be acquainted from their local knowledge with all the circumstances of the case.

MR. COLLINS

was of opinion they ought to make the clause so clear that "he who ran might read." It was not its intention to close public-houses against those unfortunate women altogether. That was not its meaning, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to insert the words "reasonable refreshment." They might depend upon it they would never get a man who kept a public-house to refuse a woman who came to his house for refreshment, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt his suggestion.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he was entirely opposed to the proposed power to be given to the magistrates, on the ground that they should not be permitted to be the sole interpreters of the law.

MR. WATNEY

said, he must ask for an expression of the sense of the Committee upon his proposal. Where he differed from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in this—they were all agreed to punish those really meant by the clause; but where a poor woman went to a public-house to obtain refreshment it was, he thought, most unjust to punish a publican for giving it.

MR. HARVEY LEWIS

thought the clause monstrously unjust. It was perfectly clear that if these poor women were to be allowed to live at all, they must have some refreshment; and it was most unjust to punish a licensed victualler for giving it, and even to subject him to the danger of forfeiting his license for doing so. He also objected to the proposition of the Home Secretary—that the magistrates were not to be permitted the exercise of any discretion, but to be compelled in every case to convict under what he considered a Draconian law.

MR. STRAIGHT

was of opinion that the unhappy women to whom allusion had so frequently been made were placed in a very cruel position under the Bill. As it was, the police were ready enough to raise a cry against their class—too often when they did not deserve it; and, under the clause as now proposed, they might in the most harmless way come to a public-house for their beer, to take it home, and in that sense to be said to be in the habit of "frequenting" the place, thereby rendering the publican liable to proceedings. The result of that would be, that in some places they would be denied refreshment altogether. He objected to the clause and viewed with fear and suspicion the Bill generally, as being one composed almost wholly of penalties. Having imposed a large variety of penal restrictions upon electors, and having made the exercise of the franchise a pain instead of a pleasure, the Government now desired to deal in a similar way with the licensed victualler.

MR. BRUCE

said, that if the present law were sufficiently stringent, why were they now legislating to improve it, and make it more beneficial to the community? His answer, therefore, to the hon. and learned Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Straight) was, that Parliament was asked by the Government to exercise one of its principal functions in order to effect the desired object. What he had to complain of during the present discussion was the very wide range hon. Gentlemen took in their views of the meaning of the Bill. The present clause was not an exception. It did not prevent these women from going to or getting refreshment at a public-house, nor punish the licensed victualler for supplying it. It simply meant houses well-known in the neighbourhood as places of meeting for these women, and the magistrates would easily understand it in that sense, and in that sense only. As, however, there seemed to be a general objection to the clause as it stood, he would suggest that the Committee should reject the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), which was too wide, and adopt that of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), which would permit women, although "reputed protitutes," to remain in licensed houses sufficiently long to obtain "reasonable" refreshment. He must however, say that it was against his will that he acceded to the Amendment.

MR. WHITBREAD

observed that it was important for the Committee to know what it was the Home Secretary proposed to give. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex. That of the hon. Member for East Surrey did not include the very offence they were talking about, and he therefore trusted the right hon. Gentleman would lay down clearly in the clause what he meant by saying that those persons should receive proper refreshment.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

suggested that if the hon. Member for West Essex would change "or" into "and" in his Amendment, it would meet the object in view.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Essex would not make any important difference. If the right hon. Gentleman would only say what concession he proposed to make, it would be easy to settle the words of the clause to meet it.

MR. BRUCE

remarked that a substantive offence might be committed under the clause before they came to the word "or." He should, therefore, propose to insert, instead of "or who shall allow," "if he shall allow."

MR. WATNEY

said, he was willing to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE moved, as an Amendment, in page 5, after the word "prostitutes," in line 13, to strike out the words "whether the object of their so resorting or meeting is or is not prostitution." The hon. and learned Gentleman said, it was outrageous to leave those words in the clause. The publican was to be fined, and his license, perhaps, taken away, if such persons came to his house, whatever the object with which they came. Such a provision, he thought, could not hold water; for it was admitted that even prostitutes were not to be starved to death. They were to have something to eat, or to drink, if they wanted it; and, therefore, if they came to a public-house for a perfectly honest and proper object, no crime at all events was committed by them, nor was any committed by the publican. He was, in fact, doing that for which, by the law, he might be punished for not doing. Those women went to those places for their dinner or their tea; but by the clause, whatever their object, improper or not, still, if they were women who were "reputed prostitutes"—whatever that might mean—the publican was bound to prohibit them having any. Now, there was no necessity whatever for those words, unless to create an offence which did not exist at present, and he would therefore move that they be struck out.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from the word "whether," to the word "prostitution," in line 15.—(Mr. Locke.)

MR. R. N. FOWLER

expressed a hope that the Home Secretary would not give way.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, on the contrary, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would. Up to that time the law had always required proof of a criminal intent in these matters, and he trusted the law would long remain so. The truth was that even now, if there were not magistrates who were disposed to mitigate the severity of the laws enacted by the Legislature, about half the adult population of the country would now be in prison. Only the other day it was stated at the Mansion House that, during the reign of the present Majesty, 4,000 Acts of Parliament had been passed, and as he believed most of them contained an average of ten misdemeanours, there were 40,000 misdemeanours that had been created by the Legislature since Her Majesty's accession. Happily, however, in this country magistrates would not act upon such. Acts of Parliament, and he trusted that even now some means would be found of escaping from legislation of this character. He had understood that the object of this Bill was to amend and improve the system of licensing, and if it had been declared at the outset that that was a mere Bill for the aggravation of penalties, he believed it would have been rejected by the House. He knew perfectly well that these penalties were proclaimed in the name of humanity and liberty. It was always so. There was nothing in the world so cruel as the tender mercies of a real philanthropist. There was no barbarity which he was not prepared to commit in pursuance of his sacred crotchets. A stand must be made against this kind of thing; they must seek some protection against that form of legislation, which, in the name of liberty, put everybody into prison, and in the name of humanity treated everyone with cruelty. ["Oh, oh!"] Let hon. Members see whether it was not so. A person was not to go into one of these houses, with the exception which they had succeeded in getting, not, as his right hon. Friend had said, by his good will; but, even with that exception, people were not to be allowed to go into these houses, not because they had any bad object. If they had any bad object, he agreed that they should not be allowed to enter them. But it was now thought necessary to legislate against humanity and the view of English liberty which had been, and which he hoped always would be, taken by English Judges, and to tell English Judges that they must convict, even though there were no object of prostitution. And who were going to support such a proposal as that? Was it not hon. Gentlemen who in that House had raised an agitation on the Contagious Diseases Bill? Had it not been complained that women were taken into custody upon the mere reputation of their being prostitutes, that they were dealt with in a harsh and severe manner, and that they were subject to examination and other indignities? ["Question!"] That was the question. He wanted to know whether persons who took that view of the subject were going to support a clause of this kind, which declared war against women who were reputed prostitutes, whether they went to a public-house for purposes of prostitution or not? He could not conceive anything more grossly inconsistent than that persons who took that view of the liberty of the subject should support a clause of this character. Hon. Members were no doubt willing to prevent the habitual resort to public-houses for purposes of prostitution; but he hoped the House would never consent to people being dealt with in the way proposed when they went to public-houses with no such object. He was quite sure that if that House did agree to it, the English people would never allow it to be carried out.

MR. BRUCE

, in reply to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Harcourt), said nothing could have been more distinct than his (Mr. Bruce's) statement at an early stage of the Bill. By far the greater portion of that statement went to show that the Bill consisted of two parts; one of which was the enactment of more stringent police clauses, of which the infliction of new penalties must be part. His hon. and learned Friend must be very ignorant of the controversies which had taken place on the subject, if he was not aware that one of the main objects contemplated by all parties was the introduction of more stringent police clauses for the maintenance of order in licensed houses. The present clause, as it now stood, provided that any licensed person who permitted reputed prostitutes to assemble or meet together on his premises for a longer time than was necessary to obtain refreshment should be liable to a penalty, and he should like to know what cruelty was inflicted under it? This was the simple issue before the Committee. If the Committee thought that it was not an offence against morality to allow these persons to assemble for a longer period than was necessary for purposes of refreshment, of course, they would support his hon. and learned Friend; but if they were anxious to put down a flagrant and crying evil, they would vote against the Amendment.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was of opinion that the persons referred to should be enabled to procure necessary refreshment; but he had a suggestion to make which he thought would meet the views of both sides. He proposed that the words, the omission of which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, (Mr. Locke) should be left out, and that the following should be inserted in their place:—"or to be used by them otherwise than for necessary refreshment." That would enable prostitutes to obtain refreshment, and at the same time prevent the houses being used for purposes of prostitution.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

thought the words proposed to be struck out were mere surplusage; and if they were omitted, the clause would then meet the object in view. He must express his regret that the Home Secretary should have stigmatized the section of the House which would vote against the Government on this point, as favourable to prostitution.

COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN

thought the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Gregory) would ac- complish the object of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark, and at the same time not be contrary to the spirit of the clause.

MR. LOCKE

said, if his own Motion for omitting the words were adopted, he should be prepared to accept the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory).

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the object of the Bill was understood to be the regulation of licenses; but an impression had been brought to his mind, and perhaps it had been brought to the mind of official Members, that there was another object of the Bill. There was a proposal largely to reduce the number of licensed houses, and it seemed to him that it was sought to achieve this object by a process of severity. He held that it was the duty of the Committee and of the House to see in that process of reduction of the number of public-houses by penalties, that the public was not made to suffer for an object which might or might not be good in itself.

MR. FOTHERGILL

expressed himself in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Sussex.

MR. COLLINS

said, the clause would get rid of only those public-houses to which prostitutes habitually resorted.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

asked, whether they were to understand that if the words proposed to be omitted were left out, those suggested by the hon. Member for East Sussex would be inserted?

MR. BRUCE

, in reply, stated his intention to adhere to his original engagement, and accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson).

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 128: Majority 54.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, as an Amendment, in line 15, after the word "shall," the insertion of the words— If he allow them to remain thereon longer than is necessary for providing them with necessary and reasonable refreshment.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

, on the Proviso— Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted, moved the insertion after the word "shall," of the words "unless the convicting magistrate or justice shall otherwise direct." There might be circumstances which rendered it undesirable to record the conviction, and he believed that in many cases magistrates would avail themselves of the Proviso which he proposed, if it were inserted. He wished to say one word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were taking objection to a great many clauses, avowedly as the representatives of the licensed victuallers. He (Mr. J. G. Talbot) also represented a number of that body, and he knew that a great many of them were anxious that this Bill should pass. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite were acting very unwisely in opposing this Bill. If this moderate measure were not passed, they would have an immoderate measure forced upon the country, and the licensed victuallers would find themselves in a worse position than they would be under this Bill.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words "unless the convicting magistrate or justice shall otherwise direct."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

MR. LOCKE

, who had a similar Amendment upon the Paper, said, there could not be the slightest doubt that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Kent was the same as he (Mr. Locke) had moved on the preceding clause on a former occasion, leaving the endorsement of the conviction on the license a matter in the discretion of the convicting justices. On that occasion, the hon. Member moved an Amendment to his (Mr. Locke's) proposal, and by so doing threw the whole case into confusion, and in consequence of that, many hon. Members, as they themselves had told him, voted differently to what they had intended. They did not, in fact, understand what the division was about. He (Mr. Locke) was desirous of carrying his Amendment now on this clause; but the hon. Member for West Kent interposed his, and very probably the result would be they would be both lost. The hon. Gentle- man might say there was no difference between the two Amendments; but if that were so, why on the face of the earth should the hon. Gentleman be so anxious to have his own Amendment adopted, unless it be that he wished to monopolize the whole credit of correcting the provisions of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman had read the Committee a lecture on their conduct, and said they were preventing the passing of this Bill, which was a moderate one. No one would more rejoice than he (Mr. Locke) would at the passing of a fair and just measure; but it was quite obvious that under this clause the licensed victualler would be placed in a very painful position, inasmuch as whenever he might be brought before a magistrate, charged under the provisions of this Bill, the magistrate was, as a matter of course, to endorse on the license the decision to which he might come. That was, he considered, extremely unfair, and accordingly the other evening he moved an Amendment leaving that to the discretion of the magistrate, and he did not see how the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman made that proposition more clear.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

said, the difference between his two hon. Friends the Member for West Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), as the rival advocates of the licensed victuallers, placed the Committee in some difficulty. He (Mr. Harcourt), however, advocated a distinct interest—the interest of the British public; and speaking in that interest, he thought that those whom they entrusted with the administration of the law should also be invested with a discretion in reference to the endorsement of the convictions. He wished to see the hops of Kent and the sound malt of Southwark united in a loving cup, and therefore would advise his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southwark not to refuse the assistance offered on the other side of the House, for the carrying of the Amendment would secure all he desired, and what the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had with his usual sagacity suggested.

MR. BRUCE

said, if he were to choose between the two he would prefer the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for West Kent, but he was prepared to vote against them both. He had never concealed the motive of this measure, which was intended to reduce the number of public-houses by weeding out all those which were badly conducted. For instance, at Luton, where there had been 250 public-houses, the number was now reduced to 200, which was quite sufficient for a population of 20,000 inhabitants. The result was most satisfactory, as the inhabitants were no longer exposed to the same temptations to disorder and crime as heretofore. He wished to give the magistrate the fullest discretion in deciding whether or no an offence was committed, and it was not asking too much to require that the decision should be recorded on the license. Under the system of restriction public-house property had acquired great value, and it would become still more valuable, when the number of houses was diminished by the abolition of the bad houses. That being so, the magistrates if left a discretion would shrink from exercising it, when their decision might jeopardize property worth from £2,000 to £3,000. The provision was not new to the law, as even the Judges were not allowed a discretion in the case of the second conviction of a man previously sentenced to transportation or penal servitude. If the Committee wished to see the number of disorderly houses diminished they would vote against the Amendment.

MR. STRAIGHT

said, the illustration of the man sentenced to penal servitude brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was extremely unfortunate, as he had often heard Judges complain of their being left without that very discretion to which he had referred. The case of the borough of Luton was likewise an unhappy illustration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, for if, under the existing law, the magistrates of that town were able to diminish the number of disorderly houses to the extent mentioned, he did not see any necessity for a change which would create an aggravated punishment for an offence, which was already amply provided for by a pecuniary penalty. It seemed as if Her Majesty's Government were bent upon loading the pages of the statute book with crimes and misdemeanours, and rendering the existence of Englishmen as perilous as it would be intolerable. Among others, he observed that one of the offences, three convictions for which would forfeit a license, was the allowing prostitutes to remain in a licensed house longer than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment. The whole question, therefore, would be whether a reasonable time had been exceeded, and that question would undoubtedly cause great difficulty to the magistrates, who would in this instance, as in many others suggested by the Bill, be slow to convict if the conviction must be endorsed upon the license, without any discretion being left to them. The right hon. Gentleman should beware against the introduction of too much of this kind of thing in his present measure lest he find it as unpopular as his last.

MR. RATHBONE

observed that under the present law the magistrates might declare the license forfeited on the first conviction, so that the clause instead of making the law more stringent actually relaxed it. Under these circumstances, the advocates of the licensed victuallers were doing their clients small benefit, for as the mind of the public was now awakened to a sense of the evil, they would, if this clause were rejected, call upon the magistrates to carry out the stringent powers with which they were now invested.

MR. ASSHETON

wished the Home Secretary to consider what would be the consequences of an enactment like that, affecting as it did, the question of confiscation of such an amount of property as in many instances would be the case? When the magistrates found that they had to endorse the convictions, and that those endorsements would abrogate the license, they would hesitate to convict, and thus the whole of the Bill would be defeated. Let them convict, and the Committee might rely upon it that if the offence was one which ought to be recorded on the license, they would not hesitate to do so. He would, therefore, suggest that the word "may" should be inserted in place of the word "shall."

MR. DODSON

suggested that, as the Amendment was the same as that proposed on Clause 13, and was supported by the same arguments, it would save the time of the Committee, if they at once divided on it.

MR. WETHERED

said, that when the Home Secretary spoke of the value of public-house property, he forgot that it had been seriously deteriorated by the introduction of that Bill of Pains and Penalties following the still-born monstrosity of last year.

MR. COLLINS

said, that what the House had to consider was, how they might make that a practical measure; and they would not succeed in that if they threw difficulties in the way of convictions, which would be the case if the magistrates found that they had to inflict a punishment out of proportion to the offence.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

said, he looked at the matter from a police point of view, and must warn the Committee that if they drove the unfortunate people against whom this clause was directed from their usual places of meeting, they would spread themselves over the whole town, and get beyond all police control.

MR. HENLEY

said, although he had no doubt that magistrates would be very glad to be relieved of any discretionary power in the matter, yet he held that if the magistrates were to have the power of convicting, they ought also to have a discretion in deciding on the degree of the offence, whether or not it was of a character which ought to be recorded on the license. He felt certain, that if they took away the discretion of the magistrates, and left such heavy consequences hanging over a conviction, they would have no convictions at all. He was old enough to remember that when a fixed punishment was assigned to the crime of horse-stealing the Judges laboured in their charges to the juries to make it out a case of receiving, in which they had a discretion; and just so here, if the discretion was taken out of the hands of the magistrates, they would find some loop-hole or other to escape from the responsibility which the clause would impose upon them.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 159: Majority 6.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Penalty for permitting premises to be a brothel).

MR. T. HUGHES moved, in page 5, line 24, after "liquors" to insert and such premises shall be disqualified from receiving a license for the term of five years from the date of such conviction, his object being to make the owner share with the occupant the responsibility. Brewers were generally the owners of those houses, and it was only right that they should be compelled to let their houses to none but proper characters.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, that though the brewers were generally the owners of those houses in the country, that was not the case in London or other large cities, where the licensed victualler was generally the proprietor, and invested large sums of money in the concern. If this Amendment passed, the person who was the owner of the house might, without any fault of his, be ruined.

MR. BRUCE

said, he should oppose the Amendment, for the same reason as that which induced his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill in the other House (the Earl of Kimberley) to withdraw a similar provision from the original Bill. The penalty proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Frome was a very heavy one, and he thought it would be a great hardship to impose it upon the owner—probably behind his back—and, as the hon. and learned Member proposed, for a first offence. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it.

COLONEL BERESFORD

said, he should like to know upon what ground the hon. and learned Member proposed to add such an Amendment to the clause. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member, and if the Amendment was pressed, he should certainly vote against it.

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER

concurred with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hughes). The clause, as he proposed to amend it, would be restored to the provisions of that which was in the former Bill. He was of opinion, that they were bound to hold the owner of the house as well as the publican in possession, responsible for any such violation of the clause as the Amendment was moved to guard against.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the owner of a house occupied by a publican could hardly foresee that his tenant would turn his premises to such uses; and if he pressed his tenant for his rent, or did not comply with his demand for a reduction of it, the tenant might turn round and convert the house into a brothel, and thus ruin the man's property. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the proposed Amendment, if adopted, would operate with great severity against the owners of houses, and the Government had acted very wisely, and were entitled to credit for striking such a provision out of the clause.

MR. RYLANDS

hoped hon. Members opposite would allow the Amendment to be negatived without a division, as it could have no other possible effect than that of confiscating the property of innocent persons.

MR. STRAIGHT

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it would have the effect of convicting two persons for the offence of one.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

supported the Amendment, with a view of compelling owners to inquire into the character of persons before they let their houses to them.

MR. COWPER-TEMPLE

said, it was desirable to take every precaution against any of those houses being made brothels. He thought, however, that a penalty should not be inflicted upon the owner, except in cases wherein he had heard of, and allowed, such a use being made of his house.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

hoped the House would come to a division on this clause. If it was intended to pass the Bill, hon. Members should take care not to allow it to be overloaded with too severe imposition of penalties.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, it was perfectly absurd to punish a building for an offence committed by a person.

MR. T. HUGHES

said, the landlord could not be taken by surprise, as some hon. Members supposed. He could not, in fact, be taken by surprise. He regretted that the feeling of the House seemed to be opposed to his Amendment, and he would therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Penalty for harbouring constable).

MR. RYLANDS moved, in page 5, line 37, at end of clause, add— Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted, unless the convicting magistrate shall otherwise direct.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that was one of the penalties which was considered by the House of Lords as being too severe, and rejected in consequence by them. He hoped the Government would not adopt it.

MR. CANDLISH

, on the contrary, considered it was a discretion that should be given to the magistrate, and he therefore hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would accept the Amendment.

MR. WHITBREAD

said, it would give a disagreeable tenant an immense power for injuring the owner of the property.

MR. BRUCE

said, it would be absolutely impossible to protect the public, if the interests of the owners were to be considered too narrowly—in fact, by so doing, an injustice would be done to the public. However, he had no objection to the withdrawal of the Amendment, more especially when it was remembered that the clause was sufficiently powerful without it.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

considered that the interests of an unoffending owner ought not to be overlooked.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

, for the reason that he thought owners might be unfairly treated in case the Amendment were adopted, said, he should support the clause as it stood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Penalty for permitting gaming).

MR. LOCKE moved in page 6, line 8, at end, add "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member said, that it frequently would happen that offences which would come under this section would be of a trivial character, and he thought, therefore, it would be better for the magistrate to be allowed some discretion in awarding punishment for the offence.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Power to exclude drunkards from licensed premises).

MR. WATNEY moved in page 6, line 13, after "Act," the insertion of the words "and may use such force as may be required for that purpose."

MR. BRUCE

said, the words were unnecessary, as the clause had sufficiently provided for that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Amendment made in line 19, by omitting "assist in," and substituting "expel" for "expelling."

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Adulteration.

Clause 19 (Adulteration of intoxicating liquor).

MR. PLIMSOLL moved in page 6, line 26, after the words "mixed with," to insert "or uses in brewing." He said it was a well-known practice of brewers to mix salt with other ingredients in their brewing to increase the consumption of beer. He stated that from his own knowledge the more of such beer persons drank, the more they required; and in some cases, the barrels into which the beer was put had got so completely saturated with salt, that that kind of adulteration ceased to be necessary for the purposes in view. He believed they could do much to prevent this species of adulteration by more stringent regulations and penalties, and he hoped his Amendment would be agreed to.

MR. WATNEY

said, as the hon. Member bad mentioned cases as within his own knowledge, in which this kind of wholesale adulteration was carried on, and noxious materials were used in brewing, he (Mr. Watney), as a brewer, would suggest to him that a very large and full list of materials not to be employed in brewing for the purposes of adulteration was to be found under the existing law. If the hon. Member really knew of any cases in which salt or any other material was used for the purposes he had mentioned, it was open to him to report the cases to the Excise authorities, who would, if the cases were proved, levy the heavy penalties attached to the offence, of which the hon. Member acting as informer, could receive the half.

MR. RATHBONE

supported the Amendment. A very large amount of the evil arising from the consumption of intoxicating liquors was to be traced to adulteration. They had that fact in evidence, though he did not believe that such adulteration could in the first instance be traced to any of the great brewers.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that there was no evidence to show that adulteration was practised to the extent supposed; and that if it were the existing law was sufficient, if properly put in motion, to check it.

MR. BRUCE

said, that as he perfectly acquiesced in the conviction expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the law was already sufficiently powerful to effect all that the Amendment proposed, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOCKE moved as an Amendment, in page 7, line 9, at end, add, "if the convicting justice shall so order."

MR. DODSON

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the words to be inserted. The clause dealt exclusively with adulteration, and he thought no one would maintain that when the offence was committed, there should be any question of remitting the penalty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

hoped before the clause was agreed to, that the Home Secretary would agree to omit the words by which a person convicted of an offence was required at his own cost to stick up a placard on his premises announcing the fact, and to keep it there for a considerable time. If the principle was correct, why should he not be equally required to put one up, where the test had been applied, and he had not been found guilty?

MR. BRUCE

said, in fact, what was proposed was a simple extension of an existing Act. With regard to the converse proposition as put forward by the hon. Baronet, he thought it might safely be left to the option of the publican himself.

MR. CANDLISH

hoped the clause would be struck out entirely. It inflicted a degree of discredit and degradation upon men who, as a class, ought not to be subjected to such treatment.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

expressed a hope that the Home Secretary would be content with the law as it at present existed in this respect. Even under this Bill, a second conviction would ensure the forfeiture of the license. Why require, in addition, the publicity sought to be enforced by the clause?

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, although he would admit that the offence of adulteration was dangerous and excessive, yet the clause enacted new and most serious penalties, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press it in its present form.

MR. BRUCE

said, the offence against which the clause was directed was, as he had said, a very serious one, and the principle it embodied was really one of the common law and practice. In public parks and on railways, the names and occupations of persons convicted of offences against the by-laws and regulations, together with the penalties inflicted, were constantly placarded. He did not see why the convictions of persons who were guilty of wilfully breaking the law by adulterating their liquors should not be made equally public. He did not attach very great importance as to the time during which the placard should be exhibited; but he did think it was of great importance that the offence of adulteration should be checked by the severest penalties that could be inflicted for the purpose.

MR. STRAIGHT

said, he thought it would be an amendment, if the police were to affix the placard, instead of the publican.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought the objection could be met by advertising the conviction in each case in the local newspapers. Compelling a man to placard on his premises the record of his own conviction was neither more nor less than adding a second penalty for the same offence.

MR. MUNTZ

trusted the Home Secretary would adhere to the clause as it now stood. Nothing was more scandalous or deserving of more severe punishment. In the district with which he was connected two-thirds of the cases of poor fellows being sent to gaol arose from drunkenness brought on by drinking beer which was largely drugged with Coculus Indicus. It was the law in France, that for the offence of adulterating any article, the vendor on being convicted must put up a notice of his conviction, and if he took it down or allowed it to be taken down a policeman was placed on his premises—at his own expense—to see that the notice was properly exhibited for the prescribed time.

MR. GREGORY

said, that nearly all the adulterating materials mentioned in the Schedules were poisons, and he thought that those who used them or were privy to their use should be not only punished by fine, but well exposed.

MR. BRUCE

said, that on a second conviction the magistrate had power to give the fact publicity by advertisement.

LORD HENRY SCOTT

thought publication of some sort should take place, and if even this proposal for placarding the house were adhered to, the punishment would not be too severe for the offence.

MR. FOTHERGILL

said, that he was told that a gallon of spirits, such as was sold at some public-houses, could be made for 2d., the principal ingredient being sulphuric acid. He hoped the names and offences of such shameless adulterators would be ordered to be stuck on their shop-doors, and that they should be ordered to do it themselves.

MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLE

said, he did not object to the placarding, but to the man placarding himself. The notice might be put up at the police office.

MR. BRADY

thought it was neither right nor just that having paid the penalty for selling an adulterated article, the publican should be compelled to placard his own offence. This portion of the clause would, he believed, prove ineffectual in preventing adulteration.

LORD EUSTACE CECIL

said, he approved of the suggestion of his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), that publication of some sort in a newspaper should be made, and must say he saw no difficulty in doing so. He could corroborate the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) as to the practice that was pursued in France.

MR. WHITBREAD

objected to the proposed punishment on the ground of its being un-English. He would ask the Committee to distinctly consider whether the placarding would have the effect they believed it would have. If the person convicted were a poor man, the fact of compelling him to plead his own offence might have the effect of bringing to him no small share of custom from those who thought that he had been harshly dealt with. He believed that when the question of adulteration was thoroughly investigated, it would be found that there was much less adulteartion in what was sold under the name of intoxicating liquors than in most other articles.

MR. VERNON HARCOURT

considered the penalty an unprecedented one as regarded the English law, and intended voting against it. With respect to what was done by the French police, he trusted that the Committee would not consent to the adopting of any such system. Was Parliament prepared to pass a law declaring that whatever offence a man committed he should be placarded for a fortnight? A man might be convicted in the Divorce Court of an offence of a cognate character, and he would ask was he to be placarded at his own expense? If this was thought to be a proper way of preventing offences, let it be made a part of the criminal law of the country that a man should be obliged to go about with a placard on his back, and another in front of him, stating the nature of his offence. Formerly men were branded for certain offences, but the common sense of mankind revolted against such a punishment, and it had been abolished. He objected to the re-production of penalties of a similar character to one particular case.

MR. BRUCE

said, he would, upon bringing up the Report, again consider the clause and the suggestion made for modifying it, by causing a police constable to affix the notice of conviction. He might, however, remind the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford that as the law now stood magistrates had power to publish the names of offenders in a newspaper, and in such other manner as they might think desirable.

MR. AUBERON HERBERT

said, he was in favour of the punishment, on the ground that it carried with it a sense of shame. He therefore thought the right hon. Gentleman should not give way, and allow the police constable to do what the delinquent himself ought to do.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that if these penalties were imposed on innkeepers, the same ought to be imposed on those who adulterated milk or anything else.

MR. WETHERED

remarked that the placarding of the house might injure a future and more respectable occupier.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Possession of adulterated liquor or deleterious ingredients), agreed, to.

Clause 21 (Schedule of deleterious ingredients).

MR. WTNGFIELD BAKER moved as an Amendment, in page 7, line 37, after "Gazette," insert "and in two or more of the daily newspapers."

MR. BRUCE

, in opposing the Amendment, said that The London Gazette was the authorized medium of the publication of every official act.

MR. WINGFIELD BAKER

said, he proposed the Amendment as a fairer mode of giving notice to the two classes likely to be affected by the clause—the wary and the unwary. For the former, it would supply better evidence to convict; to the unwary, better notice of the danger. The Gazette was not like an Act of Parliament, no one offending against it could be convicted, unless it was proved he had read the order in The Gazette. Considering the heavy punishment to be incurred, he begged leave to urge the Amendment on the Home Secretary.

MR. BRUCE

said, his hon. Friend might depend that when such an order appeared in The London Gazette, it would receive a far wider circulation than was suggested in the Amendment, for anything that might appear in that journal of the nature referred to in the question would be sure to be copied by all the leading papers, and thus disseminated all over the Empire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 (Analysis of intoxicating liquors).

MR. WATNEY moved an Amendment, in page 8, line 3, to leave out from "any of the," to "to do and," in line 5, inclusive. The hon. Member said he wished to strike out the words which enabled a superintendent of police, or other constable, to procure samples of intoxicating liquor, and to confine that duty to officers of Inland Revenue.

MR. BRUCE

said, he could not accept the Amendment; but he had given Notice of Amendments to provide securities to prevent anything like oppressive conduct being adopted towards individuals.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CECIL RAIKES

proposed in page 8, line 24, to omit "may," and insert "shall," the object being to compel the officer to declare that he is about to analyze the liquor.

MR. BRUCE moved—it being now ten minutes to seven—that Progress be reported, and intimated that it was the intention of the Government to resume the Bill at twelve o'clock to-morrow (Saturday).

MR. GLADSTONE

I may add, Sir that it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to sit beyond 4 o'clock.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Sir, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether he is really serious in his intention to take the Licensing Bill to-morrow? The announcement has certainly taken the House by surprise.

MR. GLADSTONE

We really intend to take the Licensing Bill to-morrow, and we gather that what we propose is agreeable to the general sense of the House.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

I must protest against the statement that this course is taken with the general concurrence of the House. We have worked well during the past week, and it is really too bad that on the only day that we have to ourselves the Government should put this Bill down. I protest most earnestly against its being taken. Why not take it on Wednesday?

And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.