SECOND READING.

HC Deb 28 April 1875 vol 223 cc1764-80

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. ANDERSON

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to amend the licensing appeal system, which in Scotland was very bad indeed, and he would state at short length what the present system was, and what were the evils of it. The present system was, that the appeal should be from the licensing magistrates to the justices of the peace in quarter sessions, and as the battle lay between the publicans on the one hand and the teetotallers on the other, in a very large proportion of the cases the decisions of the magistrates were appealed against. It appeared to be considered by both parties that the original decision was a very secondary matter, and that the real battle had to be fought, not before the licensing magistrates, but in the appeal Court. It had consequently become the practice in a number of counties for the parties interested to canvass the justices and induce them to go down to the appeal Courts and vote in a given direction. So notorious was it that that was done that both parties went even beyond canvassing, and he had been told, on authority he could not question, that justices of the peace had been known to take presents in the shape of railway tickets or the payment of their hotel bills for going down to vote on a certain side. He submitted that when things got to that extent, when appeals were not decided on their merits, but on corrupt principles and according to which side had made the most vigorous canvass, the appeal became in reality a scandal and a farce, and ought to be got rid of. He believed there were no two opinions on that subject. No hon. Member of the House would contend that the present system was one that could be supported, or that it ought to be tolerated any longer. The only point on which there could be discussion was as to the nature of the remedy. He had taken great pains to find out what would be the most likely remedy to meet the admitted evils. It had been suggested to him that the justices should appoint licensing committees; but he had felt obliged to give that idea up, because he could not see any way in which a committee of justices could be appointed without the same evils springing up as existed now. The committee would, of course, be constituted of men holding the views of the majority of the justices, and that would not be an arrangement to give satisfaction and confidence. After great consideration, he had come to the conclusion that what was wanted was a Court of Appeal that would have a local knowledge sufficient to judge of every case on its merits, and at the same time to be above local prejudices and beyond the slightest suspicion of being open to corruption. They must be superior to canvassing, and must accept no railway tickets or hotel bills, nor, as had been done in some cases, presents of whisky. [Laughter.] The hon. Baronet near him (Sir Edward Colebrooke) smiled as if that were a doubtful statement; but he assured him the thing was perfectly notorious even in the county of which he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) was Lord Lieutenant. The remedy which he (Mr. Anderson) proposed was to make the sheriff and the sheriffs-substitute the Court of Appeal. Those officials were looked up to by everybody in Scotland, and there would not be the slightest suspicion of corruption or of anything but fair-play between the parties in the decisions they might give. Strange as it might seem, the parties he had expected to support him in the Bill—the parties who wished to restrict the issue of licences, had held aloof altogether, and some of them, he understood, intended even to oppose him; but, to his surprise, the party he had expected to oppose him most strongly—namely, the party representing the publican interest—had very cordially accepted it as a fair compromise. The other party opposed him, because they thought there should be no appeal at all from the magistrates. The publicans, however, very reasonably said—"We must have an appeal—if we don't, there will undoubtedly be injustice done." Another strong ground why there should be an appeal was, that if there were no such appeal, every municipal election would become, far more than it was at present, a contest between the two rival parties on the liquor question. That matter already entered into municipal contests so far as to be an evil. More important matters were lost sight of, and a man's election or rejection depended on whether or not he was a teetotaller, and if that system were encouraged by the abolition of appeals, they would have in some towns what would please the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle—namely, town councils composed entirely of teetotallers; but, in other towns, they would be composed exclusively of publicans, which would not please the hon. Baronet so well. It was perfectly impossible to do away with appeals; it would not be fair to either party, nor good for the interests of the public to do so. He understood the Lord Provost of Glasgow objected to the Bill because he thought it would be derogatory to the dignity of burgh magistrates to have their decisions in any way subjected to the review of sheriffs or sheriffs-substitute. He had great respect for the burgh magistrates generally, and for the Lord Provost in particular, believing they performed responsible and thankless duties in an admirable manner; but he could not see that it took away from their dignity to have their decisions reviewed by such a Court of Appeal as he had suggested. He should dismiss that objection, therefore, as untenable. If they had no Court of Appeal, such a thing might happen as took place the other day at Dundee, where the magistrates assembled and decided beforehand not to hear cases on their merits at all, but to refuse every application for a new licence, and the renewal of licences to men who held more than one. That was a clear case of going beyond the statute, and was a specimen of the unfair and illegal things which might be done if there were no appeal. The only reasonable objection he had heard to the sheriffs as a Court of Appeal was that the matters they would have to deal with were not confined to legal points, but involved questions of administration and discretion. He had mentioned that objection to the sheriff of Lanarkshire, who said he considered it no objection at all—that his office was to a great extent an administrative one, and that while he thought there were grounds for objecting to the Bill, he could not regard that as one of them. The sheriffs had not been slow to assert the importance of their office from an administrative point of view when they wanted larger salaries, and it was rightly considered that their duties were largely administrative. No doubt, many of the sheriffs were opposed to the Bill, because they expected it would throw on them a large amount of work, but he anticipated nothing of the kind. The sheriffs, haying the same desire as the magistrates to preserve peace and order, would generally affirm their decisions; but, at the same time, would be able to prevent any injustice like that perpetrated the other day at Dundee. He believed the extra work thrown on the sheriffs would after a time be very limited indeed, and they would be looked up to with universal confidence; and as there was some talk of giving them larger salaries, there ought not to be any objection to a little more work. He would not further detain the House. He thought he had shown, in the first place, that the present system was intolerable; in the next place, that they wanted a Court of Appeal, which should have sufficient local knowledge, and yet be above possible corruption, or above any small local prejudices. He thought he had also shown that they could get that in the Sheriffs Courts, and that it would not be for the good of the community, or fair to the community, to abolish appeals altogether, because it would turn municipal elections into a battle-ground between the teetotallers and the publicans, and that certainly would not be for the good of the community. Although he had chosen what he believed to be the best Court of Appeal that could be got, he freely admitted that there were some objections to it; and he was not so wedded to it as not to be prepared to accept some modification if hon. Members could point out any better arrangement in Committee; but the main principle of his Bill was, that the present Court of Appeal was entirely unsatisfactory, and should be changed. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he could not believe the charges of corruption which had been made, for had it existed to anything like the extent represented, he must have heard of it, as it would have been represented to him by the authorities. He certainly did hear some statement about a few magistrates dining at the expense of some of the parties applying for a licence and that was a serious charge, no doubt; but it was made in such vague terms, that he could take no notice of it. The hon. Member having made these charges, should inquire more fully into them, and if they were found to be true, he would like to see the matter brought before the Home Secretary; for if the statements were true, nothing could be more discreditable or more likely to shake public confidence in the administration of justice. If, however, they were not true, he hoped the hon. Member would have the grace to tell the House that they were false. He would admit the unsatisfactory nature of the present Court of Appeal, but could not agree that the sheriffs were the proper parties to throw the duty upon. It would be in- consistent with their other work, and it was very undesirable they should be mixed up in local squabbles, which could only tend to interfere with the dignified performance of their higher duties as the administrators of justice. In that way, imputations would be heaped upon them tending to bring discredit upon their tribunal. As Judges of the land it was very much to their interest to stand aloof from local questions, and it was far better that duties of this kind should be discharged by bodies who could bring to bear local knowledge. In the boroughs there was a tendency to take extreme views; but, on the whole, it would be better to continue the present system rather than adopt the sheriffs as a Court of Appeal. Besides, there was the less need to call on them to perform this work, because they had a remedy already lying at their feet. The numerous body constituting the Court of quarter sessions should delegate their functions to a committee, and that would meet the necessities of the case and remove the existing evils. It was a course which had already been recommended by several Parliamentary Committees which had considered the matter, and it had already been adopted in English counties under the last Licensing Act. He cordially concurred with the hon. Member as to the necessity of having some appeal, because there was far more danger in Scotland than in England of justice running wild. The people took stronger views, and were more likely to run into extremes. In conclusion, he must again regret that his hon. Friend should have made such general and serious charges against the magistrates, for the appointment of some of whom he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) was personally responsible. He should vote against the second reading of the Bill.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, there was no doubt that there was a grievance in Scotland on the question. They had no appeal Court at all, for it was merely an appeal to the same justices who had originally decided the question. The hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire had repudiated the accusations which, for his own part, he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) had seen more than once in the papers, but he had never seen any official contradiction of it. By the Bill it was proposed to have an appeal Court for the counties, but there was no alteration proposed for the burghs. Now, it was in the burghs where the greatest evils existed, and he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow would do well to confine the Bill to the burghs, and leave the Government to deal with the counties. They could fancy that there would be no better constituted body than the magistrates, who were responsible for the peace and good government of the city, to grant these licences. Take Glasgow. The decisions of the magistrates of Glasgow were subjected on appeal to the justices of the county of Lanark, who were not interested in Glasgow, and who came under circumstances as described by the hon. Member; and these justices decided what licences should be granted to music-halls and dancing saloons. This was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He did not think that it would be right to delegate a certain portion of the magistrates to hear appeals. He believed the sheriffs would be the best Court of Appeal so far as the burghs were concerned, and therefore he should support the second reading of the Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had for the last 30 or 40 years paid great attention to licensing, and he certainly did not agree with those who had so many faults to find with the present system. He would, however, admit that it was very unsatisfactory, the magistrates who decided the appeals being often not cognizant of the merits of the case. The most dangerous state of things in public or private affairs was when parties came forward and said "something must be done," without knowing what. If the something was done, they often got deeper into the mire. Until something could be done which was certain to be an improvement, he held that nothing should be done. So far from this Bill effecting any improvement, he believed it would be a great evil if it were passed into law. The sheriffs objected to being made the Court of Appeal, because it was imposing a duty upon them foreign to their office, and they said that, for the due exercise of that power, they would require local knowledge as to the requirements of the towns and villages within their jurisdiction which they did not at present possess; and, on the other hand, they affirmed that such knowledge was possessed by the justices of the peace who were drawn from all districts of the country in which the jurisdiction was exercised; and, lastly, they said that if this duty was thrown upon them it would tend to impair the administration of justice. He coincided with the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire that the Courts of quarter sessions should appoint a small licensing committee, say of four, and he would make the further suggestion that no decision of the local magistrates should be reversed except with the concurrence of three out of the four members of the committee, as was the rule with the Judges of the Supreme Courts. He thought that would afford a fair presumption that there had been no miscarriage of justice. It was not so much a question of law to decide as of fact. All the old Licensing Acts said that licences were to be given, not to everyone qualified according to law, but "to such number of persons as the magistrates shall think meet and convenient in each locality." It was a question of discretion; and who was so well qualified to decide as the magistrates of a borough or the justices of a county? To prevent the four magistrates or justices being selected on grounds of partisanship, he would have the names of all the magistrates present at the Court of quarter sessions put into an urn, and the first four drawn out should constitute the committee. They would thus obtain a fair and impartial court of appeal. He had many other objections to urge, but he had said quite sufficient to show that he opposed the Bill.

MR. MARK STEWART

said, if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would move the rejection of the Bill he would second it. It appeared to him that the question was one of very great importance to the country, and that it ought to be taken up by the Government, as there could be no doubt that some alteration of the Licensing Acts was imperatively called for. He had had some experience of quarter sessions both in England and Scotland, and he felt that the practical effect of the measure would be to throw upon the sheriff an odium that no Judge ought to incur. As he had said, the question ought to be taken up by the Government, and although he could not suppose, in the crowded state of Public Business, it could be taken up this Ses- sion, still he hoped the debate would not be futile in eliciting some expression on the part of the Government, or in drawing their attention to the fact how great and important the question was in the eyes of the people of Scotland. The suggestion thrown out as regarded the selection of a certain number of magistrates to form a committee in order to adjudicate in licensing appeals would not hold good in burghs, where the number of magistrates was not large enough to inspire confidence in the selection. It had been said that there were too many public-houses in burghs, but the excessive number of public-houses had not sprung up within the last few years. On the contrary, there had been recently a decided disposition to reduce the number of public-houses, and the number of licences granted had been very few. He should, for his own part, be glad to co-operate in any measure which would still further diminish the number of public-houses; but he did not believe that the Bill, if passed, would produce the effect which the hon. Member for Glasgow desired.

MR. M'LAGAN

thought any system would be better than the present one, and he noticed that every one who had spoken had approved of the principle of the Bill. Everyone, too, considered the present circumstances unsatisfactory, and that there ought to be a change. The Preamble of the Bill did not ask for the appointment of sheriffs, but it simply stated that the present state of things was very unsatisfactory, and that it was necessary to have a change. He believed that a better amendment of the law could be made than was proposed in the Bill; and he had no doubt that in Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow would be ready to assent to any Amendment which would render its provisions more entirely satisfactory. For his own part, he must say that he preferred the constitution of the Court of Licensing Appeal as proposed by the Commission of 1860 to that proposed by the Bill. That Commission suggested that a committee of justices should be formed to hear appeals. In many places, public-houses were now forced upon the inhabitants of towns by packed benches of magistrates—he would not say by corrupt, but by facile magistrates. That would not be the case if the Bill passed, and he should therefore vote for the second reading, reserving to himself the right to support Amendments on its provisions in Committee.

SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY

thought the Bill had been introduced in consequence of some local grievance which the hon. Member for Glasgow had in reference to the administration of the laws in licensing appeals by the justices in the lower ward of Lanarkshire. He objected to go into Committee on the Bill with a view to substitute an entirely different Court of Appeal from that which it proposed to establish. He thought it would be very unwise to transfer the appeal from the justices to the sheriff. At the same time, he thought it would be expedient that appeals should be heard by a committee selected but not by ballot, from the justices, instead of by the bench at large, as was the case at present. Although he did not object that the sheriff or sheriffs-substitute should preside over such a committee, he could not consent to transfer to them alone the whole power now exercised by the magistrates.

MR. RAMSAY

said, that on the ground that the present system was very unsatisfactory, and that some remedy was required, he should vote for the second reading, if the hon. Member should go to a division. The principle of the Bill was not that the licensing appeals should necessarily be transferred to the sheriff, but that a new licensing Court of Appeal should be constituted. The true course would be to pass the second reading, and then amend the constitution of the proposed Court of Appeal in Committee. A change in the present system was certainly required, for, as it was, the decisions of the local justices were often overruled by magistrates from other parts of the country who knew little of the merits of the question. He had known a case in which the decision to refuse a licence by four local magistrates had been reversed by two justices at quarter sessions, one being the sheriff. The licence was granted, though the local magistrates considered that it should be refused, and though the proprietor of the house himself had requested by letter that it should be withheld. Nothing more anomalous than that could be pointed out in order to induce the House to provide some remedy.

SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONE

said, he strongly objected to an appeal being allowed from the decision of magistrates to the sheriffs of the county. His duties, as a justice, with regard to licences had been of a disagreeable nature; he would be very glad to be relieved of those duties, but it would be intolerable that the decision of county magistrates should be reversed, or liable to be reversed, by a Sheriff Court. He strongly objected to the Bill, and if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) would make a Motion, he would support the rejection of it.

DR. C. CAMERON

said, that as his hon. Colleague (Mr. Anderson) had expressed his determination to carry the matter to a division, he felt it incumbent upon him to explain why he would vote against the second reading of the Bill. The measure contained no such provision as that which had been recognized and adopted by Parliament in respect to licensing appeals in England, and which did away entirely with appeals from the decisions of the local magistrates in all applications for new licences. Now, the Bill before the House proposed to place all appeals in the hands of the sheriffs. It was not a novel proposal, as it had come under the consideration of the Royal Commissioners in 1859, and they had not only reported against it, but also against what might be described as a much milder suggestion in the same direction—namely, that the sheriffs should be ex officio members of the Licensing Appeal Court, which the Commissioners recommended should be appointed. Since these Commissioners reported, the law relating to appeals had been altered in England, and the suggestion of the Commissioners that a Licensing Appeal Court should be formed had been accepted; it was accepted also with this further important addition, as he had just explained, that no appeal should be allowed from the local justices in the case of refusal on application for a new licence. That was really a matter of much greater importance than the question of the constitution of the Appeal Court. A Return, which had been laid before the House last Session, showed that in Glasgow, within three years, 150 licences had been granted by the county justices over the heads of the city magistrates. The reason why the measure of his hon. Friend, therefore, met with the opposition of the Good Templars and of the Executive Committee of the Permissive Bill Association in Scotland was, that they feared that it would be a means of saddling permanently upon that country a mode of dealing with licensing appeals which was far behind the system adopted in England, and for that reason he (Dr. Cameron) was prepared to vote against the second reading.

MR. VANS AGNEW

said, that he should consider it his duty to vote against the second reading of the Bill. He believed that its principle was not merely that there should be a better licensing Court, but that the appeals should be taken from the justices of the county, who had local knowledge, and given to the sheriff and his substitutes. He objected to that. He granted that the present system afforded room for improvement. He had sat for more than 30 years as a licensing magistrate, and a magistrate hearing appeals. He had sat at quarter sessions with a bare quorum of three magistrates, when an appeal had often come from a decision of a unanimous bench of magistrates, and he was always sorry when these questions of licensing came before them. Under those circumstances—knowing that he was ignorant of many local details bearing upon the cases—he had always felt it his duty not to interfere with the decision of the magistrates; but he thought it was hard on the magistrates of burghs, who knew their own town and its circumstances, for them to feel that their decisions were liable to be reversed by another set of justices who happened to meet in the county town on the day of quarter sessions. He thought it very desirable that such a contingency should be obviated. In reference to the Bill itself, the proposal to refer appeals to the sheriffs would not improve the condition of affairs. They could not have the local knowledge required in each particular case. Besides, he found that it would be possible for the decision of the sheriff, who might be in the right, to be overruled by his two subordinates, whom he had himself appointed. The sheriffs themselves objected strongly to have this duty thrown upon them, and urged that it was quite foreign to the discharge of their official duties. They were appointed to decide upon questions of law, not matters of expediency such as the granting of licences; and they thought that it would be better that the system of throwing the decision of such questions upon a licensing committee should be adopted in Scotland as it was in England. In Scotland it happened very often that an appeal would be heard by a smaller number of magistrates than the Court which had granted or refused the licence. There might in some cases be strong pressure put upon the magistrates to refuse or to grant licences; but he believed that the mode in which it was proposed by this Bill to meet that possible danger would neither be satisfactory to the magistrates nor to the people of Scotland. He thought the suggestion thrown out that there should be a licensing committee sitting as a Court of Appeal was one worthy of attention, and he should be very glad to see it carried out. If possible, the sheriff of the county might be placed upon the committee, and if that were done, he thought they would have arrived at a very fair arrangement, by which the matter would be put on a much better footing than it was at present.

MR. MONTGOMERIE

said, that it seemed to be admitted on all hands that licensing appeals should not be abandoned, but he did not think the Bill had pointed out the right course that should be adopted. If, as was stated, the sheriffs objected to the Bill, he thought all the more would the sheriffs-substitute object, for they lived on the spot, and they would dislike to be mixed up in private squabbles about licences. Several speakers had suggested the appointment of a committee of justices to quarter sessions, and he could not see why there should be any difficulty in adopting this suggestion. The county of which he had the honour of representing, a division was divided into districts for licensing and other purposes. From these district courts there was an appeal to quarter sessions. Let the justices meeting in quarter sessions appoint a committee composed of those best qualified for the duty, to be assisted by a magistrate chosen from each of the district courts, who would give the committee the benefit of their local knowledge, and, at the same time, guarantee thorough impartiality in hearing appeals. He believed that in that way disputed questions arising in any particular district would be satisfactorily settled, and, if such a provision were introduced in any Bill on the subject, he would support it. There was not the least occasion for that committee to dispose of any case at the moment. They might sit from time to time, according to circumstances. One objection to the sheriffs would be that they would be inclined to grant licences simply because the applicant bore an unimpeached character. The sheriff would say—"He is a respectable man, and I am prepared to grant him a licence." He did not think that would be satisfactory, although, at the same time, he thought it would be very desirable to get rid of the present system of canvassing the magistrates. A great deal had been said about the opinion of the sheriff of Lanarkshire, and it seemed to him that on the present occasion they were asked to upset the whole system of licensing for the simple purpose of providing a new licensing Court for the city of Glasgow. Notwithstanding the high authority of the sheriff of Lanarkshire—whom he knew to be a most excellent man and able lawyer—although he did not know that he had any other special qualifications as a licensing magistrate—as to the necessity for the change proposed, he did not think they were bound to pass the Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, there were many inconveniences connected with the matter of licensing appeals, especially as far as regarded a large community like that of Glasgow, and he thought it desirable that there should be some change in the present system. But he was quite opposed to the substitute suggested by the Bill, for it would be quite inconsistent with the recognized principles of local administration in such affairs that the opinions of the magistrates of such a place as Glasgow should be overruled by the opinion of a sheriff and a sheriff-substitute, which was really what was proposed by that measure. The sheriffs were unwilling to have imposed on them such a duty, not because of the additional work, which would not be very much, but because it would introduce them into disputes with reference to social and temperance questions from which it was very desirable they should be kept free, in order that they should maintain their judicial position. In Scotland the question of temperance probably occupied a larger share of public discussion than it did in England, and they were told that the selection of members of municipalities depended upon the opinion on that subject held by candidates. If that were the case, how very unfortunate it would be if the sheriffs and sheriffs-substitute should be subjected to the opposition of a certain party, because of their judgments in the licensing Court. The question had been under the consideration of the House before. It was also considered in 1870 by a Commission who were in favour of the appointment of a committee of justices as a committee of appeal to be nominated by a general meeting of the justices; and in the Licensing Act passed for England in 1872 there was a provision for the appointment of a licensing committee composed of justices, annually nominated, and he thought that in the case of Scotland it might be well to have some such committee, dealing, however, with the large towns in a somewhat different manner from the small towns. In small towns and remote districts such questions could best be determined by those who had local knowledge, and even in such large cities as Glasgow and Edinburgh, they would be better dealt with by a licensing committee of magistrates than by the sheriffs. He could not assent to the Bill; but, without pledging the Government to the introduction of a measure that Session, he would promise that the question of the licensing Courts in Scotland should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity.

MR. ANDERSON

was about to reply, when—

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member would be out of Order in making a second speech.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that no formal Motion for the rejection of the Bill having been made, he was deprived of the opportunity of reply, but he must trouble the House to divide.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, the debate had hitherto been confined entirely to Scotch Members, and it might go on for a considerable time longer, as those hon. Gentlemen kept dropping into the House. In the meantime, he desired to say a few words. He was very glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had taken up the part of a temperance reformer, and was endeavouring to improve the licensing system, from which they all suffered so much. The debate had been particularly pleasing to him, because almost every hon. Member who had got up had made a speech in favour of the Permissive Bill. He must, however, look at this Bill from his own point of view, and that point of view was, that all the facilities which were afforded for drinking were very dangerous to the people, and were the cause of a great amount of the misery which existed among them, and in that frame of mind he should support any measure which went in the direction of removing such dangers. The only question he had to consider, therefore, was whether this Bill, if carried, was likely to diminish those dangers. There had been great diversity of opinion expressed on the subject. The Scotch Members were generally supposed to agree better among themselves than the Irish Members did; but, on the present occasion, the variety of opinion they had expressed was rather perplexing. For his own part, he could not see why the Scotch law on the subject should be different from the law of England, and what he would suggest was that the law of Scotland should be made the same as that of England, and that there should be no appeal from a refusal to grant a new licence. If an Amendment to that effect was introduced in the Bill when in Committee he would vote for the second reading now. Apart from that question, the Bill was of trifling importance, and the general opinion seemed to be that it would make things worse rather than better. Before sitting down, he wished to refer to a matter to which he almost felt that it was his duty to call the attention of the Speaker, and to ask him whether it was not a breach of Privilege—only they had breach of Privilege questions almost every day now. He referred to a note addressed to the Members of the House signed by the Secretary to the United Licensed Victuallers, Protection Society for England, Ireland, and Scotland, which was couched in the most insolent terms— Sir,—Please to be in your place in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the 28th of April, to vote for the Licensing Appeal Bill for Scotland, to be brought forward on that day by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mr. Anderson. Why, that was language which they could not have dared to address to their own potboys, and he protested against the audacity of dictating to hon. Gentlemen what course they should adopt in dealing with the question. He felt that it almost amounted to a breach of Privi- lege, but he would not be too hard upon them, and would not call upon the Speaker to decide that it was so. He simply called attention to the fact that that note was signed by the Secretary to the proprietors of all the drinking establishments of the United Kingdom. He scarcely liked to vote in such company; but on the condition he had stated as to an Amendment, and on the old principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, he would, as he said, vote for the second reading.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 176: Majority 77.