§ MR. SAMUEL SMITH (Flintshire)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction has prevailed in Liverpool at the laxity of inspection of public houses and the great abuses that spring from it, and that a great desire has been expressed to enforce more stringent supervision over them; whether he is aware that in several cases, where convictions have been obtained against publicans for allowing drunkenness and harbouring prostitutes, these convictions have been quashed on appeal by the Recorder; whether he is aware that, when hearing an appeal recently where a conviction had been obtained on the prosecution by the police against a publican for harbouring women of bad character, which house was reported by the police to be a well-known resort of such characters, the Recorder, in giving judgment quashing the conviction, is reported to have said—
He could be no party to saying that any unfortunate who desired reasonable refreshment could properly he refused. No Act of Parliament had gone as far as that. However, the Statute did not define what period was a reasonable time for allowing refreshment, and, with reference to the particular circumstances of the case, he was unprepared to say that five minutes, 20 minutes, or even half an hour was sufficient or oven more than time enough;whether the Recorder has correctly stated the law; and whether the Government is aware that this and similar decisions tend to paralyse the action of the police in seeking to preserve decency and order among the low public houses, and causes great dissatisfaction in Liverpool?
§ * MR. MATTHEWSI am informed that dissatisfaction has prevailed among certain houses in Liverpool as to an alleged laxity of supervision of public houses, and that, at the last City Sessions, one conviction of supplying drink to a drunken person, and two convictions for harbouring prostitutes were quashed on appeal by the Recorder, who informs me that he did so upon evidence showing 863 that resort to the houses in question was not for the purpose of prostitution, and was not attended by disorder or indecency. The words quoted are substantially a correct Report of what was said by him. So far as I am able to judge, the Recorder correctly stated the law, which leaves the question of what constitutes a reasonable time for refreshment to the discretion of the magistrate. I am informed that there has been some dissatisfaction in Liverpool at the decisions referred to, but that there are two parties there opposed on this question.