COMMITTEE. [Progress 5th June.]

HC Deb 08 June 1874 vol 219 cc1168-205

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Record of Convictions and Penalties.

Clause 11 (Mitigation of Penalties) agreed to.

Clause 12 (Record of convictions on licences).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, a question had arisen, by which, under the clause as it was at present drawn, a copy of the register would not be evidence of an offence recorded in it, unless special words were introduced for the purpose. He believed it had been ascertained, also, that in some parts of the country it would be inconvenient to have the register itself before the magistrate. The defect had been pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Warwickshire. With a view to give effect to the object he had mentioned, he would move as an Amendment to insert in page 6, line 16, the words, "may or shall."

MR. GREGORY

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper which preceded that of his right hon. Friend. It was to insert in page 6, line 15, after "this Act," the words "in respect of which it is provided that a record shall be made upon the licence," and its object was simply this. There were certain offences under the former Act which did not require endorsement on the licences, and his Amendment was in- tended to leave that law as it was. It proposed that magistrates should not have the power to endorse licences with convictions in cases in which they were not required to do so. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

MR. CHILDERS

said, that if he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department correctly when he introduced the Bill, he laid stress on the only changes as to endorsements, being that they would be optional, and ordered positively instead of negatively. On looking, however, to the clause itself, it did not appear to him to carry out that intention very clearly. The provisions connected with the adulteration of liquor were left out of the Bill altogether, as the right hon. Gentleman preferred dealing with that subject under the general law; but the result would be that no offence of this hind could be endorsed. Then, again, if the present clause were allowed to stand as it was, especially in conjunction with the Amendment of the hon. Member, no endorsement could be made in cases of obstructing the police, while with regard to convictions for allowing drink to be consumed on premises without a licence, it would be optional with the justices to endorse convictions on the licences or not, just as they thought proper. That, he thought, was a very unwise relaxation for so grave an offence. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be so good as to inform him if his interpretation of the clause were correct, and whether he would not propose some Amendment in order to make adulteration and the sale of drink without any licence whatever more serious offences?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that at present endorsement was absolutely obligatory in certain cases, and obligatory in others, unless the magistrate ordered otherwise; while for a third class, there was no direction in the Act, though he believed endorsement was practically possible. The policy of that practice was very doubtful, and he certainly should not like to accept his hon. Friend's Amendment without more careful consideration. The sole object of the present clause was to give to the magistrates the power of endorsing the convictions on the licences or not, just as they thought proper. That was a perfectly fair and reasonable proposition, because, in, his opinion, all judges should have the power of awarding whatever punishment the nature of a case required, or the offence merited, and beyond that in some cases any other course would inflict great hardship not only on the occupier of a public-house, but on the owner of it. There had been cases of two convictions for trivial offences, where the magistrate imposed the minimum penalty, and would have dismissed the charge had he been able, while in others the maximum punishment of £20 had been awarded for a single heinous offence. As the law stood, the owner and occupier in the latter case were in a more favourable position than in the former, having only one conviction recorded instead of two, while the others had two for petty offences, involving the certainty of a third practically forfeiting the licence. As an act of justice, then, to the magistrates, he did press this most strongly, and without hesitation.

MR. CHILDERS

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question which he (Mr. Childers) had proposed to him.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that he intended that the clause—as it was originally drawn—should take in all these cases. That had been his intention, and therefore, while refusing the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory), he had accepted its spirit.

MR. CHILDERS

Then all the offences which were at present subjects of endorsement, would be so still?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that such would be the case, but at the discretion of the magistrate.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that at the proper time he would ask the Committee to negative the clause. He had been surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State assort that no one in the House attached any importance to those clauses of the Bill which did not refer to the hours of opening and closing; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, before the question was disposed of, be convinced that many hon. Members did attach considerable importance to this clause. Under the Act, as it at present existed, there were a number of offences for which convictions might be obtained, such as permitting drunkenness, rioting, and gambling, and harbouring improper characters, any one of which entailed the payment of a fine and the endorsement of the licence; and the law had as yet worked well. If for the future, however, a fine was to be the only penalty inflicted for one of those offences, the punishment would be most inadequate, and the publicans who wished to break the law would be enabled to do a roaring business. In the first place, they would have the chance of escape, arising out of the difficulty in the way of the prosecutor's proving the offence. Then they had the chance of the magistrates, content with the mere fine, desiring to indulge in the cheap luxury of being merciful at the expense of the public, and therefore declining to endorse the conviction on the licence; or it might be that they would not wish to injure the property of the brewer, who was, perhaps, their brother magistrate. Finally, there was the chance of escape afforded by the appeal to quarter sessions; so that the man who, with so many probabilities in his favour, had his licence endorsed, must be very unlucky indeed. Their old friend Horace told them that punishment, although lame of foot, seldom failed to overtake the criminal; but here she would be made by the right hon. Gentleman a downright cripple. The existing Act had kept the trade respectable, by protecting those who desired to observe the law, from having to contend against competitors who were determined to break it; and Parliament should retain that Act in its full force, and not by the proposed alteration deprive it of all its terrors, if they wished to see persons of good character entering the business.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was glad to find his right hon. Friend was prepared to meet the spirit of his Amendment, although not accepting its terms, and he would, therefore, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw it.

Amendment (Mr. Gregory), by leave, withdrawn.

MR. NEWDEGATE

urged that the magistrates should still retain the power of endorsing convictions on the licenses when they thought proper.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

explained that the Amendment he had placed in the hands of the Chairman was framed expressly for that purpose. If it was adopted, there would be no compulsory endorsement; but they would still have the power to register convictions in all cases which might appear to them to require such an endorsement.

Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross) agreed to; Words inserted accordingly.

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

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

moved its omission.

MR. RATHBONE

supported the Motion for the rejection of the clause, and said he did not wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but he could not help thinking that sufficient attention had not been paid to its working, as it stood in the existing Act. He did not think the Home Secretary had stated the case quite fairly when he had referred to the course pursued by the magistrates in Liverpool and other boroughs. The magistrates had by the present Act discretionary powers of not recording convictions when they thought they ought not to be recorded. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have been present during the debates on the original Act, because if he had, he would have known that it was urged by many hon. Gentlemen, that the only remedy for such abuses was to make the owners of public-houses feel that they were responsible for the selection of good and respectable tenants who would conduct their houses in an orderly manner.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, what he had stated was that it very often happened that when small penalties were inflicted, according to the strict letter of the Act, these trivial offences and small penalties, taken cumulatively, had that effect; whereas, in the case of a serious offence and the infliction of one heavy fine, the same result did not follow.

MR. RATHBONE

said, the section of the existing statute referring to the matter was the result of a compromise suggested by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. J. G. Talbot) and agreed to by Lord Aberdare. He did not think that as respected borough magistrates that compromise should be disturbed. It might be unnecessary in the case of county magistrates. The county magistrate was an influential person. He was often the landlord of the public-house or those frequenting it, and could therefore exercise a direct and powerful in- fluence in such matters. But the case of a borough magistrate was very different. In many cases they were members of the town council; they were the friends and neighbours of those whose property might be affected by a continuous record of convictions, and it was therefore necessary to strengthen their hands to do that which they felt ought to be done. He therefore urged upon the Committee strongly not to weaken the law in this respect in towns. He could not help thinking that it was most unfortunate that they should have been called upon to deal with this question, with such limited experience of the actual working of the present Act. Even with that short experience, however, he thought it could be shown that the working of these clauses had not been injurious to property, or favoured that confiscation of which they had heard so much. On the contrary, it was shown that the number of convictions in the case of public-houses had fallen from 3,152 to 2,297, and in the case of beerhouses from 6,371 to 1,495. He thought that nothing could be more conclusive as to the good effects of Lord Aberdare's Bill in preventing disorder in the streets and in maintaining quiet in these houses than this decided diminution of the number of offences, and he therefore hoped that the Home Secretary and the Committee would maintain the law under which such results had been attained.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he thought that if there was one thing more than another which demanded the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, it was the question of adulteration, by which drunkenness was caused more than by almost any other means. He wanted to know precisely what were the conditions on which the licence was to be endorsed under the new Act, and whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to take out of the hands of the magistrates the power of punishing those who vended bad liquor? Most of the drunkenness with which magistrates had to deal was caused by bad liquor, and magistrates should have the power to record convictions in cases where the bad liquor was proved to have boon sold.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the Amendment which he was prepared to accept was that of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) to the effect that convictions under the Adulteration of Food and Drink Act should be entered upon the register, and that the register should be before the magistrates when they had to consider future proceedings.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

, in supporting the Motion of his hon. Colleague (Sir Francis Goldsmid) said, in his opinion the evidence was most conclusive that the Act of 1872 had answered the purpose for which it was intended. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself said that licensed houses had been better conducted since 1872, and the number of convictions as to public-houses had diminished 25 per cent. and as to beer-houses 75 per cent. That clearly showed the success of the penal legislation of 1872. That being so, why were they now asked to mitigate penalties, of which, as a matter of fact, no one complained? The right hon. Gentleman had blamed the late Government for not knowing what they were about in reference to the Licensing Act, and that it had been passed without due consideration; but if the proceedings of the other House were consulted on the subject it would be found that the record of convictions on licences was one of the most important points of the measure. Moreover, if he looked at the alterations which had been made in his own Bill, he would see whether he himself knew what he was about when he brought in the present Bill. He had stated that the enactment that there should be endorsements upon licences prevented good men from entering into the trade, and induced those already in to retire from it. There really, however, was no ground whatever for this statement. Public-house property had largely increased in value since 1872—a fact which showed that capital was being attracted to it. The truth was, that there never had been a measure passed which had met with more general approval than the Act of 3872, and there was really no sufficient ground for their doing away with the securities contained in that statute.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, that it was quite possible that the number of convictions had diminished, and that the value of public-houses had risen since 1872; but these two circumstances did not at all affect the question whether an act of injustice should not be remedied and that was the object of the clause. The Act of 1872 required that convictions for certain kinds of offences should he unconditionally endorsed upon the licences, no matter what the nature of the individual offence was, and some of these offences were such as might he committed innocently or unwittingly. The present clause, however, would give to magistrates a discretion to record their judgment upon the licence or not. During the last Election there was a serious accident upon the Great Western line, and when the passengers, after being delayed until late into the night, arrived in town they could not get into any licensed house, the owners of such houses saying that they could not risk their licences by serving them. Circumstances like these should surely come before the magistrates, and they ought to exercise their discretion upon them.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he had all along felt the gross injustice of the clause which the present Bill proposed to repeal. All branches of the trade had also felt the injustice of the clause in the original Act more than they had felt that of any other clause. They said that they cared little about the hours, but that they all felt the injustice of the endorsements. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) had said that the severity of the penalties had diminished convictions; but the same argument was used in favour of maintaining the punishment of death for sheep stealing. Possibly the number of convictions was less, because magistrates were unwilling to convict when the heavy penalty of endorsement must follow. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Bath-bone) that borough magistrates were, as a rule, inferior persons. He knew not what they were in Liverpool; but in the vast majority of the boroughs they were fully competent to discharge their magisterial duties.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

would rather that the clause in the Act of 1872—the words in which had been introduced at his own suggestion, to get out of a difficulty in which the then Government seemed to be involved—should have remained unaltered; but after what had been said by the Home Secretary as to its necessity, he would vote for the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid) would not divide the Committee. He believed that the Amendment would have a beneficial effect by providing that upon any conviction under these Acts, the magistrates should act in a formal—he might almost say a ceremonial—manner, and deliberately declare, with the register before them, whether the convictions should be endorsed or not.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 345; Noes 81: Majority 264.

Regulations as to entry on Premises.

Clause 13 (Constable to enter on premises for enforcement of Act).

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

hoped the House would relieve licensed victuallers from the sort of vexatious interference that had unfortunately taken place to a large extent since the passing of the Act of 1872. Under that Act a police-constable might enter any part of a licensed victualler's premises by night or by day, provided he considered he was in the execution of his duty, and under such an enactment, the private apartments were subject to inspection and intrusion. So long as that House sanctioned the sale of intoxicating liquors as a trade, they had no right to treat a licensed victualler other than a citizen, and he ought to have the same protection for his home as every other Englishman had, whose boast it was that his house was his castle. He (Sir Edward Watkin) would suggest that after the word "premises" in the 4th line of the clause, the following should be added:—"other than the private apartments of the licensed person or persons," and also in the proper place in the next clause. The private apartments of a licensed victualler ought to be as sacred as the private rooms of any other trader in the country.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that under the Act of 1872 the clause relating to the entry of constables pointed specially to their entry into bed-rooms, or whatever room they chose, and he believed it was introduced practically to give them the power to search for adulterated liquor. He hoped, however, the House would soon sanction the striking out of the adulteration clauses of that particular Bill, leaving the licensed victuallers, like other traders, subject to the Adulteration Act; and therefore that particular expression of the Act of 1872, which he thought was a very unfortunate one, might now be removed from the Statute Book. When he gave instructions for the drawing of this clause, it was simply that it might be restored precisely to the state in which it was before the Act of 1872; and he was advised that that had been done, and that it was now in accordance with 5 Will. IV., and 18 & 19 Vict., under which no oppression was ever exercised. He hoped that the present clause would prevent any undue interference with the liberty of the licensed victualler, which it had been his desire to accomplish.

MR. DODSON

said, that the Act of William IV., to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, enacted that a constable might enter any licensed premises; but there was a doubt whether that carried with it the right to enter every room. He believed that the better opinion was that it did. In order to make that matter absolutely clear, the words "every room and part of such premises" were inserted in the 35th clause of the Act of 1872. If, now, the right hon. Gentleman wished to make it clear that the private rooms of a licensed victualler were to be protected from search by a constable without a warrant, he wished him (Mr. Cross) to consider whether it would not be necessary to insert words to that effect.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was his desire to make the clause perfectly clear, and he-would consider whether the words suggested might not be added upon the Report.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Search warrant for detection of liquors sold or kept contrary to law), agreed to.

Occasional Licences.

Clause 15 (Occasional licences required at fairs and races).

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, he wished to call attention to the subject of occasional licences, and would point out that there was a broad distinction between these licences in the case of beer-houses and spirit and wine-houses. That had been made a matter of complaint. In the case of spirit-houses an occasional licence could be obtained without the consent of the justices, and in the case of beer-houses it could not. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the matter.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the difference mentioned by the hon. Member was intended to limit the occasional licences to the local justices.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Occasional licences,—extension of time for closing).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it had been represented to him that in some parts of the country, magistrates were under the impression they could not, although so inclined, grant occasional licences for certain hours in the day—that an occasional licence once granted would remain in force the entire day. Now, in order to remove that doubt or misapprehension, he would propose to move as an Amendment to insert before the word "one," in page 8, line 17, the words "sunrise until;" and in line 18, before the word "later," the words "earlier than sunrise or," the effect of which would be to set forth on the licence the hours it was to run.

Amendment agreed to.

Words inserted.

MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN

asked whether there would be any objection to have occasional licences granted by the resident magistrate of a district, so as to save persons who required one for some hours of the day the trouble of journeying a distance to petty sessions?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

It is not necessary to apply to the magistrates at petty sessions for an occasional licence.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

asked whether it was contemplated that occasional licences were to be granted on Sundays, Christmas-day, or Good Friday; and whether the power remained which some magistrates considered they possessed of granting occasional licences throughout the months of June, July, and August, as was done under Act of 1872 to Sandwich, Dover, and other places?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

, in reply, said, that no such licences could possibly be granted under the present Bill. With regard to the hon. Baronet's first Question, he might observe that occasional licences were intended for balls and public gatherings, and he was quite certain it might safely be left to the discretion of the magistrates that they would not grant them for any improper purpose, but merely to promote the public convenience.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Offences on premises with occasional licence); and Clause 18 (Supply of deficiency in quota of borough justices on joint committee), agreed to.

Miscellaneous.

Clause 19 (Provisional grant and confirmation of licences to new premises).

MR. STEVENSON

, in moving as an Amendment, in page 8, line 38, after "as," to insert— a hotel or house for the supply of food and lodging to travellers and other persons requiring the same, and who desires a licence for such premises as, said, he wished to limit the grant of provisional licences to persons interested in the construction of an hotel or house for the supply of food and lodging to travellers and other persons requiring the same. A large number of hotels were rapidly disappearing, being converted into great drinking bars. In many districts there was a deficiency of hotel accommodation, and the traveller frequently experienced difficulty in obtaining food or lodging, and the provisional licence should be limited to those who intended becoming bonâ fide hotel proprietors. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would take that view of the case. There was no greater misnomer than the phrase "licensed victuallers," for in most public-houses the very last thing that a person could obtain was victuals. The old-fashioned inns, it was a source of complaint, were passing away, and their places were taken by grand gin-drinking bars. He knew cases where licences, in the first place, had been obtained during the building of the premises by giving out that they were intended for hotels, but afterwards that understanding was ignored, and the public suffered from the want of proper hotel accommodation. Under the clause they were then discussing, the plans of new premises for which a provisional licence was required were to be produced before the magistrates; but he should go farther, and render it necessary that the description of business proposed to be carried on should be stated, so that in case the magistrates were not satisfied that the promised accommodation was continued, they might be entitled to withhold the annual renewal of licence. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the Amendment. It would be difficult to define two classes of houses, and the magistrates had already power to require, before granting a licence, a certain number of rooms besides those occupied by the family. If that was not acted upon, its re-enactment would be equally inoperative. The clause as it stood would enable parties intending to build a house to make a provisional application for a licence, instead of first spending £1,000 or £2,000, and then pressing for it on the ground of that expenditure.

MR. PEASE

said, that it tended to lower the character of a public-house; that whilst it was being built the proprietor did not know whether it would be licensed or not. In his opinion, a great advantage would arise to the community from the clear manner in which the law on this point would now stand.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

thought a great advantage would result to the public from improving the character of the houses under the present Bill. They did not want more drinking-houses such as they had in the country. If they had more houses, they should be of such a character as to afford reasonable accommodation for travellers, such as the old-fashioned inns had supplied. It had often happened to him, when in the north of England, in the neighbourhood of the docks on the Tyne, that no hotel was near, while there were drinking places without end, and food could only be had by sending a great distance for it.

SIR SYDNEY WATERELOW

said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had introduced a provision under which proper refreshments would be supplied to every person who required them. He was sorry he had not gone a little further, and introduced words empowering the magistrates to take away a licence when the landlord had not fulfilled the promises on which he had obtained it. Promises so made were being continually broken. He knew of houses for which a licence had been obtained on the understanding that they should supply wine and refreshments, but which in a year or two had been converted into vaults, in which only spirits and beer could be obtained. The magistrates, he thought, should have power to take away a licence under such circumstances.

MR. STEVENSON

said, that in addition to the character of the occupier, it ought to be required that the house should be continued for the purposes for which the licence was originally granted.

MR. HANKEY

said, that the magistrates had the power of taking away a licence from a house the accommodation afforded by which had sensibly diminished.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

There is no doubt about that.

Amendment negatived.

MR. YOUNG

observed that it was clear the Committee approved of the principle of the clause; and that being so, if it was right to give the licensing authority power to license a house before it was built, there could be no objection to give it the power of removing an existing licence to it. He would therefore move, as an Amendment, to insert, after premises, in page 8, line 41, the words, "or for the provisional removal to such premises of an existing licence under section fifty of the principal Act."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would accept the Amendment, as he thought it a very good one.

Amendment agreed to: words inserted.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had an Amendment which would answer the object of that which the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) had given Notice, to insert at page 9, in line 1, of the clause, after "or other house," the words, "and if satisfied that such house is required to meet the wants of the neighbourhood." He thought it was necessary, in order to perfect the clause, to leave out at the same place the words "public-house, or other," and insert, after "house," words of this kind— And that if such premises had been actually constructed in accordance with such plans they would, on application, have granted and confirmed such a licence in respect thereof. He meant that the justices should not be confined to approving of the pre- mises, but that they should take into consideration all the circumstances attaching to the house. He begged to move that in lieu of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke.

MR. MELLY

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman told him that his Amendment would answer the purpose he (Mr. Melly) had in view, he should be satisfied; but he was anxious that in granting these provisional licences the Justices should consider the wants of the neighbourhood.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the magistrates on the first application for a provisional order must be satisfied that the house would be properly built according to the plans laid before them, and that it was fit to carry out the object for which it was intended. It was with that view he proposed the alteration. He had also another proposition to make, and that was, in line 9, to leave out the words "public-house or other." The reason simply was, when application was made for a provisional order for a licence, to put it on the same footing as if the house were actually built.

Amendment (Mr. Melly) put, and negatived.

Then Mr. Cross' Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 (One licence of justices may extend to several excise licences); Clause 21 (Confirmation of licence to sell liquor not to be consumed on the premises not required); Clause 22 (Joint Committee to make rules under s. 43 of principal Act); and Clause 23 (Notices of adjourned Brewster sessions and of intention to oppose), agreed to.

Clause 24 (No appeal to quarter sessions in certain cases).

MR. BEISTOWE

asked how the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with this clause, which was a very important one?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was his intention to leave it as it stood. Under the Act of 1872 there was power given to appeal to a Superior Court; but by an interpretation put upon it, it was held to apply to beer-houses only. He bad asked the opinion of the most eminent lawyers on the meaning of the clause, and no two of them could agree, and so he thought it better to have the clause drawn up which appeared in the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25 (Drunken person may be detained if incapable of taking care of himself).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, there would be some difficulty, he found, in working this clause, and he should therefore move that it be struck out.

Motion agreed to; Clause struck out accordingly.

Clause 26 (Substitution of licensing justices for Commissioners of Inland Revenue as respects certain notices), verbally amended, and agreed to.

Definitions and Repeal.

Clause 27 (Definitions).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

proposed, as an Amendment, to insert, after "hitherto," in page 10, line 15, the following words— 'Town' moans an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1872. 'Parish' means a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made or for which a separate overseer is or can be appointed.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 (Repeal), verbally amended, and agreed to.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:— (Sale by holders of six-day licences to bonâ fide travellers. &c.) A person who takes out a licence containing conditions rendering such a licence a six-day licence, shall, notwithstanding such conditions, be at liberty to sell any intoxicating liquor on Sunday to bona fide travellers or to persons lodging in his house.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not accept the clause.

Clause negatived.

MR. RATHBONE

moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause— (Record of conviction for adulteration.) Where a licensed person is convicted of any offence against the provisions of any Act for the time being in force relating to the adulteration of food or drink, such conviction shall be entered in the proper register of licences and may be directed to be recorded on the licence of the offender in the same manner as if the conviction were for an offence against this Act, and when so recorded shall have effect as if it had been a conviction for an offence against this Act.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause was one he was willing to adopt when the words "food or" in the second line were omitted.

Clause verbally amended accordingly, and added to the Bill.

MR. YOUNG

moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause— (Appeals by persons interested in premises against order of disqualification on limited grounds.) Any persons interested in any licensed premises as mortgagees or otherwise, besides the owner, may appear and appeal against an order declaring such licensed premises to be disqualified in the same manner and upon the same grounds and no other as those upon which the owner of such promises may under section fifty-six of the principal Act appeal against such order.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had a new clause upon the Paper which carried the matter beyond the point proposed by the clause, and required that notice should be given to all persons deriving an interest from the premises.

MR. PEASE

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, as there would be no end to the appeals, as not only the first, but every subsequent mortgagee would have the right of appearing and appealing.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

agreed that it was quite necessary to have some clause like this in the Bill. He, however, thought the clause proposed by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) best met the case.

MR. YOUNG

said, that if that was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, he would withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. MARTEN

, in moving, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:— (Certain beerhouses to be deemed of sufficient annual value.) Where at the time of the passing of this Act a licence is in force with respect to any house or shop for the sale by retail therein of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises, such house or shop shall be deemed to be of sufficient annual value within the meaning of the principal Act, and it shall not be lawful for the justices to refuse an application for a certificate for the sale of beer, cider, or wine to be consumed on the premises in respect of such house or shop on the ground that such house or shop is not of sufficient annual value, provided that such house or shop shall not hereafter become diminished, or changed in extent or value, so as to reduce its annual value to a less sum than requisite within the meaning of the principal Act, said, that by the Act of 1872, Section 46, it was provided that existing houses of that class to which the proposed clause referred, should apply for the renewal of their licences at two annual licensing meetings; and at the first meeting the licence might be renewed upon condition that the holder before the next meeting should improve the premises so as to make them of sufficient annual value; and if the holder should fail to comply with such condition, the licence should not be renewed at the second meeting. By the Acts of 1869 and 1872, the requisite value of such houses to entitle them to a licence was laid down. The object of his clause was, in fact, to protect the houses which had been twice licensed under the provisions of the Act of 1872 from further interference or molestation, with the Proviso to be added at the end of the clause, that they should not in future deteriorate or diminish in value. It was really a serious inconvenience to the owners of these houses to be obliged to prove their value every time they applied for a renewal of their licences, and it might be fairly assumed that all the houses which had in this respect passed the ordeal of two successive licensing sessions were of the proper value for all practical purposes.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that he also had felt that beer-houses were treated with much hardship in this respect, and he sympathized with the object the hon. and learned Member opposite had in view. But the difficulty he felt with respect to his clause was that, if it was agreed to, it would give a very unfair and complete monopoly to existing beer-houses. If they were to do anything in that direction, they should legislate for new beer-houses in the future as well as for those now in existence. What he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was, that the licensing magistrates, with respect both to old and new houses, should have some fixed standard to go by, and that the value should be taken either at what the house stood on the rate-book, or its actual rental. It certainly was a great hardship that the occupiers of such houses should labour under constant anxiety and fear that the magistrates might decide against them on the mere question of the value of their premises. It might be said they had nothing to fear, if the premises possessed the requisite qualification; but that reminded one of the saying that it would be no consolation to an innocent man, if he was tried twice a week for his life. There ought to be some way of settling the matter in a clear and definite manner.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he agreed both with his hon. and learned Friend behind him and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that there did exist a grievance on this particular point. But he did not think it was possible to accept the clause of his hon. and learned Friend in its present shape, while at the same time the adoption of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would require some consideration. If the clause were not pressed he would endeavour to meet the views of both hon. and learned Gentlemen by bringing up a clause on the Report.

MR. BEISTOWE

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to another point in connection with this question in framing a new clause. There were two different bases of valuation in the Beer Houses Acts of 1869 and 1870, while Clauses 45 and 46 of the Act of 1872 allowed a dispensing power, which had been used to give contradictory decisions. It was, everybody must see, important that there should be neither contradiction nor confusion in such matters.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

expressed his concurrence in this view, and testified from his own experience to the inconvenience caused by those conflicting decisions.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JAMES

, in moving, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:— (Restriction on unauthorised extension or alteration of public-houses.) In the case of any application to be made after the passing of this Act for the grant of a licence under 'The Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, 1828,' or for the renewal of any such licence (whether originally granted before the passing of this Act or hereafter to be granted), it shall be lawful for the licensing justices at their discretion to cause to be inserted in or endorsed upon such licence, a condition that no material alteration or extension of the buildings, fittings, or arrangements of the licensed premises shall be made without the approval of the licensing justices. Where a licence is granted or renewed upon such condition as aforesaid, if at any time thereafter upon an application for a renewal of such licence it is made to appear to the licensing justices that any material alteration or extension has been made contrary to such condition, it shall he lawful for the justices from time to time to refuse to renew the licence until the premises have been restored as nearly as may be, or so far as the justices direct, to their former condition, or until security has been given to the satisfaction of the justices for such restoration being made within a time to be prescribed by the justices, said, the principal objection that could be urged against it was, that it was of a discretionary kind; but it gave a discretion which would not be arbitrarily used.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

objected to the clause on the ground that magistrates already had the power which it was proposed to give them.

MR. JAMES

would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would state what that power was.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, magistrates had power fully to consider and dispose of every case of the kind alluded to by the clause which was now under their notice.

MR. PEASE

could tell the hon. Member for Gateshead that magistrates had exercised the power he proposed to give them in his own district. He held with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the power of the magistrates was already ample for the purposes contemplated.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause (Power for Secretary of State to preserve extended hours where existing in boroughs),—(Mr. Alfred Marten), withdrawn.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOITRT

protested against the withdrawal of the clause. Other hon. Members had been depending upon its being moved, and had abstained from putting on the Paper clauses to secure the same object. Could no hon. Member move the same clause now?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move the clause till the other clauses had been disposed of.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

^*: Mr. Raikes, I move that the following clause be inserted in the Bill:— (No troops to be billeted.) From and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, it shall not be lawful for any officer, civil or military, or any other person whosoever, to place, quarter, or billet any officer or soldier of any rank or description belonging to Her Majesty's Army, Navy, Marines, Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers, or to any branch of Her Majesty's forces whatsoever, or any horse of any such officer or soldier, upon any person within the limits of this Act, of any degree, quality, or profession whatsoever, without his consent, and it shall be lawful for any such person to refuse to quarter any such officer or soldier, or any such horse as aforesaid, notwithstanding any warrant or billeting whatsoever: Provided always, That nothing in this section shall be construed to restrict or affect in any manner the liability of any keeper of any common inn to receive or entertain therein such person as may lawfully and reasonably require to be received and entertained by such, innkeeper in the ordinary course of his business. The object of the clause is to abolish the unjust, partial and demoralizing custom of billeting soldiers upon licensed victuallers. But not to abolish it in sudden haste or imprudently; to abolish it after a due period within which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will easily accomplish those measures of substitution which he may deem essential. And I may, at this point, contend, and challenge contradiction, that the only tenable argument against the clause which I propose will be the alleged difficulty of providing a substitute for an admittedly evil system. In fact, I cannot, and will not believe for a moment that either the Home Secretary or the Minister of War, will, or can, defend in the abstract, the compulsory intrusion of the soldiery into the dwellings of private citizens, following a licensed and therefore a lawful calling. I will not Sir, follow the history of billeting further than to remind the Committee that billeting was established in times when there were hardly any roads, when there were no barracks, and no public edifices capable of being used for the lodgment of troops, interspersed between one distant stronghold and another. Certainly there were no railways enabling the rapid passage of men and material, and no telegraphs by which information could be instantaneously conveyed. Therefore, emerged as we are from times called barbarous, we can hardly excuse the perpetuation of a system originated under the exigencies of a state of civilization now happily passed away. The application of the custom is, I say, capricious, partial, liable to favouritism, and often utterly oppressive. To shorten what I have to say, I will confine the description of the general operation of billeting to two points—one, that of troops in small bodies passing across the country; the other that of the billeting of entire regiments of soldiers of the Line, or Militia, in the larger towns. Before doing so, however, let me ask why, if the burden is to be cast upon somebody, everybody does not contribute? That is to say, why the licensed victualler should, here, be asked to lodge men and horses at a loss, and the licensed victualler there—because there are barracks, or for some other reasons—be under no obligation at all? Again, if it be found possible in the larger part of the area of our country to dispense with billeting, why can it be difficult to get rid of it altogether? Undoubtedly, its burden grows less; then why should we not, by some reasonable effort, get rid of it altogether in 1876? But I will illustrate the two conditions which I have put—namely, mere passing through, and long occupation of a whole town. And I will ask the Committee to hear what two or three persons actually suffering under this infliction of ancient times have to say. I will merely give these statements taken at random from scores of letters addressed to me on the subject. For example, Mr. Parmenter, of the Croham Arms, Croydon, whose letter shows that he is a man of education, says— On 'three occasions' in the latter half of 'last year' I had billeted upon me horses and men. In contempt of post offices and telegraphs, on two of these occasions I received only a 'very few hours' notice, and on the last occasion—on 18th November—I received 'nonotice' at all. Men and horses presented themselves with the billet from the police station with no more notice than would be given by so many Uhlans. As it is neither my wish nor expedient to give other than good treatment to the troops of Her Majesty, who are unfairly identified with a harsh system, I always entertain them fitly, though at pecuniary loss. But the absence of fair notice makes it necessary to turn out my family 'from their bedrooms' at great inconvenience, and with the self-respect of myself and household not 'unreasonably wounded.' Sir, who will not sympathize with Mr. Parmenter when he urges the feeling of personal injury arising most naturally from a sudden and probably needless order—it may be an order that of right should have been addressed to some one else more favoured by the petty authority which issued the billet—to turn out his family from their beds and put soldiers into them? Here, again, is an- other letter from Mr. Lamacraft, of the Globe Inn, Exeter, a very respectable man—the father of a family— I had, last summer, throe horses and men billeted, and I have not any stabling attached to my house. I went to the Red Lion Inn and got the stabling for them, and in a few days after I had four horses and men put on me. I went and engaged the same stabling, and later in the day the landlord of the above inn had a billet brought him, and he sent to inform me that he could not take my men as he had agreed. So I was obliged to look further for their accommodation. Last autumn the soldiers billeted at my house were going to bed, and I noticed they had their boots on. I told them they must please take them off before going upstairs, and they tried to persuade me that they would take them off upstairs, but I persuaded them to take them off before they went up. When they were taking them off, one man said that he had not taken his off before for six weeks, and another said that he had not had his off for a fortnight. Now, Sir, these men were going to sleep in as good a feather bed as I sleep in myself—with clean bedclothes—and they were going, until I stopped them, to go to bed with their boots and spurs and other clothes on. Now, here we have a case where a man, known to have no stables, is forced to find accommodation for horses at a dead loss of money. I have also to quote a letter from Maidstone. On the question of cost, Mr. Leason, of the Queen's Head Hotel, Maidstone, gives the following calculation:—For each soldier.—One hot meal, to consist of meat, weighing 1¼bs. before cooked, 1s.; 1 lb. bread 2d.; 11b. vegetables 1d.; and 2 pints small beer 3d.; allowed 1s. 2d.; cost 1s. 6d. One bed—occupied by 2 soldiers, say, washing of linen 6d.; hire of room 1s., equal to 1s. 6d.—moiety 9d.; allowed 2½d.; cost 9d. For each horse.—10 lbs. oats, 12 lbs. hay, and 8 lbs. straw—cost of oats, hay, and straw, 1s. 8d.; hire of stable 9d., equal to 2s. 5d.—allowed 1s. 9d.; cost 2s. 5d. Estimated loss, daily, on each man and horse, 1s. 6½d.; estimated loss, daily, on 4 men and 4 horses—the usual billet—6s. 2d. On the question of want of impartiality in the distribution of billets, another correspondent says— In the case of billeting Militia or other Infantry corps, the system is open to abuse by the billeting officers—the police and non-commissioned officers presenting billeting orders upon all those persons liable who they know are not able to furnish the accommodation, such as eating-house keepers, small beer-house keepers, &c., and offering to take money in lieu thereof, for the purpose of paying for lodgings in private houses, but going to other liable persons instead, until their men are quartered, and then spending the proceeds in drink amongst the men at their quarters, where they could have placed the men without difficulty in the first place; and it generally occurs that the large hotel-keeper and publican can purchase immunity at a small cost, and the men are quartered in the lowest kind of houses, where the men are open to temptations and evil influences which they ought to be preserved from. I will now ask the Committee to take as a specimen case of the second sort, that of the ancient county town of Lancashire—Lancaster. And if it be urged that the billeting of Militia is absolutely indispensable at Lancaster, I will ask, then, how is it that in the adjoining counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland the Militia have for years been assembled, for their periodical training, under canvas? Such is the fact. But Lancaster is no doubt a case typical of many other cases in the Kingdom. The honorary secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association of Lancaster, Mr. 'Francis S. Dale, states— That the regiment of the 1st Royal Lancashire Militia is embodied at Lancaster every year for training, and during the time is billeted in the houses of the Licensed Victuallers—1st, the recruits for two months, when the number of men to each house is 4 to 6; then the main body for one month, when the number of men to each house is 10 to 12. That there is not accommodation in the licensed houses of the town for such a number of men. That 05 per cent of the men composing the Regiment of the 1st Royal Lancashire Militia are enlisted in Manchester, and are the scum of that city. And he drew a painful picture of the demoralization which ensued from the presence of the class of men of which the regiment consisted in that city. And no wonder then that Mr. Dale suggests that the men be either placed in barracks or put under canvas, as the men are in Westmoreland and Cumberland; in these counties the men are placed under canvas on Brackenber Moor, and have been now for some years. And, giving an earnestly practical opinion, he observes— It would be a great saving to Government if barracks were built on a central principle; for instance, form a district of about 12 Militia regiments, and in or near the centre of which build the barracks, and each month let a fresh regiment occupy them for its annual training. Provision might be made for recruits to be constantly training. Of course the depôt or headquarters could remain as at present. Now, I ask again, is it for the interest of the soldier—for certainly no one will venture to say that it is for the interest of society—that soldiers, especially young soldiers, should be lodged where the only amusement is drink, and in the lower public-houses, where their only companions are those who drink? Is such an association that which a commander would voluntarily select for his men? Are not the licence, the low revelry, the vulgar sights forced thus upon the young soldier certain to weaken discipline by weakening moral sense? It may be said that all this is very well, but that all you can do is to raise the scale of payment. I do not, Sir, argue the question on the mere matter of payment, although I want to know why a rich country like ours should force the licensed victualler to have his house invaded and to perform his duty of accepting billet at a clear loss of money? In fact, I feel assured that the country would reject the idea of so mean and unjust an economy. I prefer to argue the question upon the issues of damage to public morality, damage to the soldier and injustice to a class who are citizens, and who, as citizens, have a right to demand that an Englishman's house shall be his castle. The Minister of War cannot defend the practice unless on the plea, that, bad as it is, he cannot do without it at present. But, Sir, I beg to say that it is his duty to find a remedy. All the lodging of the country is at his service by voluntary arrangement, as it is to all beside. He has all the barracks, and I propose to give him time—till 1876—to build more. He has the police-stations, and he could easily add dormitories to those stations. And he can always send tents with troops on the march. In fact, is not the soldierly way to march men across the country to march them as men would march in time of war? Would not our troops gain by the experience, and become more hardy by the exposure? Believing that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary nor the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War can defend the system, I move the clause on the grounds that I have alleged—of injustice, partiality, injury to public morality and the public peace, and damage to the soldier. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the clause be inserted in the Bill.

New Clause (No troops to be billeted,)—(Sir Edward Watkin,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time,"

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that if he had taken the trouble to inquire into the condition of the Militia, he would have found that already they were for the most part, when out for training, in barracks. With regard to the Regular troops, did the hon. Gentleman mean that they were to be billeted on private houses when on the march, or in case of disturbances? What else could he mean? Had he asked for an increase of the billet money when troops were billeted, it would have been what was required by the publicans.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that to deal with the question of billeting in a Licensing Bill was more than the Committee could be reasonably asked to do. Billeting was an old institution, had often been the subject of debate in the House, had been reported upon by Committees, and was well worthy of consideration; but it would have to be considered by itself, and not in connection with a Bill of this kind. The House which had passed the Mutiny Act, which every year re-established billeting, could hardly abolish billeting by the Bill now before the House. Much was being done by barracks, camps, &c, to make billeting unnecessary, and in 1873 only 10,467 Militia had been billeted; but it must not be forgotten that the men very often disliked camps, and that forcing them under canvas was hurtful to recruiting. With respect to the case of Lancaster, it was no doubt hard; but he hardly thought that the hon. Gentleman had done well to embitter the relations between the Militia and the town, by the information that the Militia were considered the scum of the city of Menchster.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had been Chairman for many years of Lancaster petty sessions, and he must say that while the Militia were there, good order prevailed. He therefore could not allow the hon. Gentleman's statement to go forth without making this reply to it.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, he did not think the answer which had been given to the statement which he had made in support of the clause which he proposed was satisfactory. He would, therefore, divide the Committee upon it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 151: Majority 117.

MR. GREGORY

, in moving the insertion of the following Clause:— (Person not to be liable for supplying liquor to private friends without charge.) No person keeping a public-house shall be liable to any penalty for supplying intoxicating liquors, after the hours of closing to private friends bona fide entertained by him at his own expense, and without any payment from them or on their behalf, or any expectation of such payment, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act to the contrary thereof, said, it was a great hardship that innkeepers should be the only persons who were liable to fines and other penalties for entertaining their friends after the prohibited hours; and, indeed it was a sort of stigma upon them that they were the only persons in trade that were liable to penalties for doing so. But if the law was as his right hon. Friend said—namely, that publicans were not liable if they supplied articles after hours if they were not intoxicating, he should withdraw the clause.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, while not adopting the clause in its present form, thought that something should be done in that direction; for it seemed a monstrous hardship that an innkeeper could not give a cup of tea or a chop to a friend after 11 o'clock at night. When Viscount Cardwell and himself were staying at Oxford they put up at different hotels, and he visited his Lordship, and about 1 o'clock he had some whisky and water with his noble Friend. The thing was innocently enough done; but as he (Sir William Harcourt) could not possibly be said to be a traveller, it might possibly have cost the hotel-keeper his licence. Now, that was a monstrous state of things; and he would suggest that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should, on bringing up the Report, allow words to be introduced to this effect—"Closed for the sale of intoxicating liquors"—which would get rid of any doubt as to whether a publican was liable for selling other things than intoxicating drinks during the hours for closing.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

thought it would be a serious thing to have a clause like that inserted in the Bill without careful consideration, and he would rather leave the law as it stood, because he did not believe that the man who bonâ fide gave drink to his private friends after hours could be fined for doing so. He had before him a case in which a metropolitan magistrate dismissed a charge, on being satisfied that the person supplied was the landlord's friend or relation. He feared that were the clause adopted, its interpretation would be widened, and that a publican might entertain too many ostensibly private friends.

MR. GOLDSMID

thought that the words suggested by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) would make the matter clear, and obviate what was at present a monstrous injustice.

MR. FORSYTH

said, that it seemed very hard that a publican or hotel-keeper could not entertain his private friends at night without being liable for an infraction of the law. He would be satisfied with an assurance from the Home Secretary that the law, as it stood, met the case; but the opinion of a single metropolitan magistrate was not conclusive.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, that if he had been called upon to prosecute in the case referred to by his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt), he should have declined to do so, upon the ground that there was no offence. Both the Act of 1872 and that Bill contained a provision permitting the sale of liquors to bonâ fide travellers and persons lodging in the house, and he apprehended that the whisky supplied to his hon. and learned Friend was sold, in the eye of the law, to Viscount Card-well, though it might have been consumed by his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. GOLDSMID

must repeat that it was really a grievous hardship that a publican should not have the power of receiving and treating his private friends after business hours. In the case under notice, he presumed that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been a friend, not of Viscount Cardwell, but of the hotel proprietor, he could not have been entertained, which certainly proved the unfairness of the present law.

MR. PEASE

said, that he feared the clause would be abused, for if persons were admitted into the house of a publican after the usual hours they would all declare themselves to be the private friends of the landlord. He hoped the Committee would guard against any carelessness of definition.

MR. WATNEY

said, that in such a case it would be for the magistrate who would have to decide the question to say whether the parties in the house were, or were not, the private friends of the landlord.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, they must take great care that the Act was not evaded. When a clause was drawn to meet a question of this kind, it would be scanned and scrutinized in every possible way. Some objection had been raised to the police being allowed to go to the private rooms of a public-house. Supposing a constable went to a public-house bar and heard a great noise in an inner room, and wanted to go and see what was happening, the landlord would object on the ground that it was a private apartment. The constable would then have to go for a warrant, and by the time he got back the party would have dispersed, and, practically, the law would be evaded. He had looked carefully into this matter, and had drawn up a clause upon it, but any alteration in the way of relaxation of that clause would require great care. He was bound to admit that there were great difficulties in deciding this question, and the Committee were bound to take care that the object of the Bill was not defeated. It must not be forgotten that licensed victuallers had considerable privileges and enjoyed a monopoly, and although he did not wish to place any unnecessary hardship upon them, still he could not recommend the Committee to adopt the clause of the hon. Member.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not wish to do anything that would be calculated to cause an evasion of the Act. The object he had in view had been to a great extent met by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. In reference to what had been stated by the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease), he might observe that if the hon. Member had read the clause before he made his observations upon it, he would have found not only that the parties entertained should be the private friends of the landlord, but the landlord must have provided the liquors without payment. However, he did not wish to press the clause against the feeling of the Committee.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. GREGORY, New Clause— (Definition of term "owner.") Any person possessing an estate or interest in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether as owner, lessee, or mortgagee, prior or paramount to that of the immediate occupier, shall he entitled to be registered as owner or one of the owners of such premises,

—agreed to, and added to the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in moving the following clause:— (Forfeited licences.) When a licence is forfeited under the provisions of any of the Acts for the sale of intoxicating liquors, by reason of the holder thereof having been convicted of felony, or of selling spirits without licence, such forfeiture shall be doomed to apply to the Excise licences only; and it shall be lawful to transfer or renew the magistrates' licence for the premises for which the Excise licence so forfeited was held to any new tenant or occupier of the said premises, and for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to issue new Excise licences to such new tenant or occupier having obtained such transfer or renewal upon payment of the proper licence duty. —said, there had been brought under his notice cases of hardship to owners of property in consequence of the existing state of the law. The 3 & 4 Vict, and the 23 Vict., provided for the forfeiture of the licence when the publican or the beer-house keeper was convicted of felony, or of selling spirits without licence; but it was only by reason of an accidental alteration in a recent Act, that the innocent owner was made to suffer. When forfeiture of the excise licence was given by former Acts, it was never for one moment intended that the owner should be subjected to the penalty of losing the magistrates' licence for his premises. He would mention two cases where the owner of the property suffered a larger share of punishment than the tenant who was convicted of breach of the law. In Rochdale a publican, who had been 22 years in occupation, was convicted of receiving some stolen hay. The Excise licence was at once taken away, and the magistrates held that the licence for the premises being also forfeited, there could be no transfer to an incoming tenant. Nothing could be more unfair than the exercise of this power. It came to this—that one single offence of an unexpected nature would suffice to ruin an innocent person's property. In Leeds, the magistrates, after careful inquiry and examination, transferred a licence to a man of reputed good character. Some years afterwards, the police discovered that a long time before he became licensed he had been convicted of some offence which caused the forfeiture of his Excise licence, and the magistrates at quarter sessions decided that they had no power to transfer the licence to the house. He hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to grant relief to the owners of public-house property in cases where their tenants were convicted by reason of no fault on the part of the lessor.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he feared that hard cases often made bad laws, and he was free to admit that the cases mentioned by his hon. and learned Friend were hard ones. In the vast number of cases to which the law applied, there should be thrown on the owner of property licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor the responsibility of having as his tenant a respectable and well-conducted person, and with regard to the point, in the Bill under consideration there had been introduced provisions for the protection of the owners, and they all had notice. The clause in its present form was one to which he must object, while he was very willing to protect the owner of the property as far as he could.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

pointed out again that the provision of which he complained had never existed until the late Act, into which it had crept rather by accident than design. Previously to that Act the licence was void as against the convicted owner, but the magistrates, if they thought fit, could sanction its transfer. Nothing could be more unjust than to treat owners as they had been treated in Rochdale and Leeds. However, he felt that he had done his duty in bringing the grievance before the Committee, and he would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing.

SIR GEORGE JENKINSON

hoped the Home Secretary would, if he declined to accept the clause as at present worded, endeavour to meet the case on the Report.

MR. HENLEY

said, the clause, or some clause like it, was just, not only to the owner of property, but it was necessary for the convenience of the public. The clause provided against a magistrate from being disabled to continue the licence to a house where the tenant had committed a felony; and so disqualified himself; but in point of fact, it should be left for the magistrates to judge whether or not the owner should by reason of his explanation, be allowed to retain the magisterial licence. It might so happen that the owner could not control the tenant. What he (Mr. Henley) looked to was this. Suppose the business was at a railway station. No inconvenience to the public could be greater than closing the house by withdrawing the licence and leaving it closed perhaps for 12 months, because the tenant had done wrong. Unless some such clause as that proposed was added to the Bill, great injustice would be done the owners of property licensed by the magistrates. Some men would always go wrong, and it would be a great hardship, if a large number of people should be inconvenienced by the acts of such individuals. He could not see what harm the proposal could do to anybody, and it might do some good. He hoped some clause of the kind would be put into the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had promised the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that he would accept his clause, and when it was brought on on the Report he should endeavour to see that no hardship was done.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought the matter might safely be left to the discretion of the magistrate.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. WATNEY (for Mr. Gregory), New Clause— (Transfer or renewal of licences forfeited without disqualification.) In any case where by the principal Act or this Act it is provided that a licence shall he forfeited without a disqualification of the premises, or in any case where the premises are declared to be disqualified for any limited period under the principal Act, the owner of such premises may, either immediately or on the determination of such disqualification, as the case may be, apply for a transfer or renewal of such licence, either to himself or to any person properly qualified to hold the same,

agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN

, in moving the following clause:— (Power to close and to refuse to sell liquor.) A licensed person shall not be bound to keep the licensed promises open, nor to admit or allow persons to remain therein, nor to sell to any person, but may lawfully close and keep closed the same, and refuse to sell liquor therein, whether closed or unclosed during the hours during which the same may be lawfully open, or any part of such hours, said, he made the Motion in the interests of the publicans as well as of the public, and therefore claimed for it the support of the representatives of that body in the House. The Committee was aware that in every part of the Metropolitan district, public-houses were allowed to keep open until 12.30 and that the occupier must keep his house open until then, whether he wished it or not, or whether any customers came to him or not, and until then he must keep up all his staff. It seemed to him that that was a monstrous hardship on the licensed victualler, which no other class of tradesmen were called upon to endure. The argument was, that the publican enjoyed a particular monoply; but that seemed to him an utter fallacy, for he enjoyed it not for his own benefit but for that of the public, whose convenience would not be practically interfered with by this Amendment. He should be willing to confine the clause to London and the large towns. In 99 cases out of 100 in those towns the public-houses were merely places for drinking, and not refreshment houses. If the public wanted them to be opened at that hour, the publican for his own sake would take care to keep them open as long as his customers were likely to come. Chemists were not required to keep open late, but still they did keep open. He thought the matter might be safely left to the operation of the ordinary laws of supply and demand.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was sorry he could not accept the clause, which seemed to him a most extraordinary one. A number of gentlemen were to apply for licences, in order to accommodate the public with what they required to have in the way of refreshments, and that clause, when the licences were obtained, would enable the holders to shut their houses up immediately. Their houses might be applied to other purposes, and, for anything they knew, they might, in Wales, be applied to the purposes of some conspiracy. If the hon. and learned Member wanted to bring forward the subject he had mentioned, he should take a little more pains in drawing his clause. Under such a clause the public would be en- tirely at the mercy of the licensed victualler or of the hotel-keeper. A person calling at his house might be served with anything but what he asked for, and then told he must have what was offered him or nothing. He could not think the Committee would agree to the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had now to move two clauses to carry out promises which he made earlier in the Committee. One of these was to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the object of the clause was to extend to beerhouses some privileges conferred upon public-houses. The other clause was a short clause enabling magistrates to issue temporary licences for opening earlier at harvest time.

New Clauses (Persons licensed under the Beerhouse Acts to sell beer for consumption on the premises may take out occasional licences and exemptions from the closing hours,)—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)—brought up, and read a first time.

On Question, That the clauses be read a second time,

SIR SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that as regarded the second of these clauses which he had mentioned, it was a subject of the greatest interest to the country. Only that morning he had received deputations relative to it, and the concession the right hon. Gentleman had now announced would not in the slightest degree meet the grievance which was conceived to exist in the country as regarded the late hour of opening. He hoped that when the clause came up again on the Report the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the subject, and determine to enable the magistrates to make the same arrangement, not only at harvest time, but at all other times. At present, large numbers of the labouring population had to go considerable distances for their morning's refreshment, and that evil would not be cured if the hour for opening was not fixed at 5.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had not in the least introduced the two clauses with a view of meeting the circumstances to which the right hon. Gen- tleman referred, but simply in fulfilment of a promise he made earlier in the Committee, and he thought it better that the Committee should see both clauses before they came up on the Report. As regarded the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, he thought the 26th clause of the Act of 1872 had not been sufficiently acted upon for the benefit of persons who were following their lawful occupations. On the Report, he hoped he should be able to propose words to be introduced into the 26th clause of the old Act which he thought would be beneficial.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses read a second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. GOLDSMID

, in moving the following clause:— (Power for Secretary of State to preserve extended hours where existing in boroughs.) Where, at the time of the passing of this Act, more extended hours than those hereby appointed shall prevail for the sale of intoxicating liquors in public-houses in any borough, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, by writing under his hand, at any time, and from time to time, to direct that such extended hours, either in whole or in part, beyond the hours appointed by this Act, and either permanently or for a limited period of time, shall, in lieu of the hours appointed by this Act, be the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors in the licensed premises in such borough, and such direction shall take effect accordingly, said, in explanation, that the clause stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Alfred Marten); but to the surprise of many hon Members who had come down to support him, the hon. Gentleman had not moved it. Consequently, he (Mr. Goldsmid) now took it up, and invited the attention of the Government to it. He asked the favourable consideration of the Government to the clause, because there could be no doubt-that in cases where extended hours had been allowed, they had been allowed because the longer hours of occupation of considerable numbers of persons required it. He believed that if the clause were accepted, the difficulties now existing with regard to the hours in the agricultural districts would be obviated. He did not think that the proposed change would conduce to early drinking, and he hoped, therefore, the Government would give it favourable consideration.

MR. A. MARTEN

said, that he had postponed moving the clause, intending to bring it forward for consideration upon the Report. He supported the clause, and was anxious that it should be favourably considered by the Committee. It was, he believed, entirely in accordance with the general principles of the Bill. The object of the clause was to enable the Home Secretary to preserve extended hours of opening or closing licensed houses where existing in boroughs. At Cambridge, which he (Mr. Marten) represented, the hours during which public-houses might be open on week days were from 5 A.M. to 12 P.M. The Bill as amended in its present form would cut off two hours in the 24 on week days, being an hour at each end of the day, besides, the time, about a quarter of an hour, which was allowed after the closing hour for consumption of liquor purchased before the closing hour. Considerable inconvenience might be occasioned to the public by a curtailment to this considerable degree of the existing hours. It might be presumed from the hours having been extended by the magistrates that there was some good cause for the extension in the wants of the public. The grant of the power of continuing the extended hours would have a two-fold advantage. In the first place, the power would provide a means of actually preventing or remedying any established inconvenience. In the second place, the knowledge that the power existed would allay irritation. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Cross) had stated with the weight due to his high office, that he would not be answerable for the consequences in London if the hour of closing was not extended to 12.30 as he proposed. He (Mr. Marten) asked the Home Secretary to apply that observation to other parts of the country where extended hours already prevailed, and not to refuse that power which was proposed to be given to him in the public interest. It was to be observed that the principle of the Bill was not "uniformity," but was "certainty" of hours. The Bill admitted "variety" of hours. In the particular case of Cambridge, there were reasons why it might be treated somewhat exceptionally as to hours, and why, therefore, at all events, the power proposed to be reserved to the Home Secretary should be given. Cambridge was a railway centre, and the three evening trains were timed for arrival as follows:—The Great Northern at 10.35, the London and North Western at 10.50, and the Great Eastern at 11.16. Those were the times appointed for arrival, and, of course, the trains might be late. Thus there were three principal trains arriving every evening about, or after, 11 o'clock, which was the proposed new time of closing. Besides that regular traffic, there were daily, or almost daily excursions during the summer months, the trains generally arriving on their return at a time later than, or about, 11 o'clock. On the first evening of the Act of 1872 coming into operation, before the hours were extended, and consequently when the closing was at 11 o'clock, 1,300 excursionists landed at Cambridge after 11.15. The majority of those had been in the train four or five hours. It might be said that they might obtain refreshment at the refreshment room of the station. But if that were so, the effect would be to create a monopoly of supplying refreshment, which might be injurious to the public interest. In a few hours in the year 1872, as many as 3,780 male householders of the artizan class signed a memorial to the magistrates, upon which the magistrates acted in 1872, in giving relief by fixing the hour of 12 as the hour of closing. Moreover, Cambridge, as to hours, had been dealt with exceptionally from time immemorial. London was dealt with exceptionally, and Cambridge had claims to be dealt with, also, in an exceptional manner. Cambridge was a metropolis of learning. Even in the times of the Curfew, Cambridge was allowed an hour later than other places, and was privileged to shut at 9 instead of at 8, the hour appointed in other places for extinguishing fire and candle. The Bill before the House was a Bill establishing a new Curfew, and it was proper that a similar privilege should be extended now to that which was granted in former times. With regard to other places, the hours of closing had been extended to 12 o'clock in eight places, including Cambridge, with an aggregate population of about 250,000, and to 11.30 in five places. With regard to morning hours, 65 places, including Cambridge, had extended the hours of opening to 5 or 5.30. In all these cases it might be considered that there were exceptional circumstances; and he (Mr. Marten), on the whole, trusted that the proposed clause would be accepted, so that power might exist to provide for these exceptional circustances.

MR. SANDFORD

said, he believed that the object in view would be better effected by a clause which was to be proposed on the Report, under which the local licensing justices would acquire the power proposed to be given to the Home Secretary.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he could not possibly accept the clause. He was quite sure that his hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and Rochester would see, if they would bear in mind what had been the feeling of the Committee with respect to the question of the hours, that it was totally impossible to carry this clause. With respect to the proposal that the Secretary of State should fix the hours, he was bound, out of charity to himself and his successors, to decline any such responsibility unless they furnished him with some machinery by which he would be able to ascertain what were the feelings of the population in each particular locality.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, that after the statement made by the Home Secretary, he would withdraw the clause, but announced his intention to revive it on the Report as far as regarded the early morning hours. That, he hoped, the Government would be disposed to accept.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked that the inconvenience might, perhaps, be met by a modification of Section 26 of the existing Act.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

moved as an Amendment, to substitute for the terms defining the metropolitan district, the following words:— The city of London or the liberties thereof, or any parish or place subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or within the four-mile radius from Charing Cross.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday 16th June, and to he printed. [Bill 139.]