§ Lords Amendments considered.
In page 2, line 40, after 'wife, 'insert' Provided that instead of making an order in pur-
suance of paragraph (a) of this sub-section the Court may, with the consent of the wife, order her to be committed to and detained ill any retreat licensed under the Inebriates Act, 1879, to 1900, the licensee of which is willing to receive her; and such order shall have effect as it she had been admitted to the retreat under section 10 of the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and the Court may order an officer of the court, or a constable, to remove her to the retreat accordingly.'
§ The first Amendment, read a second time.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." —(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
§ (1.40.) Mr. GROVES
moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned," but Mr. SPEAKER, being of the opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
§ Lords' Amendment in page 3, agreed to.
§ Lords' Amendment in page 4 ("Interpretation of 'public place' "):- —
§ MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)
said he should like to know the opinion of the Home Secretary upon the Amendment, because the difficulties of knowing a drunken person would be very considerable. Was the Home Secretary prepared to support the Amendment?
§ *MR. RITCHIE
I think my hon. and learned friend will see the object of this Amendment. Section 3 ought to apply in whatever place the persons are found. This provision has been put in by the House of Lords with general consent, and I think it ought to appear in that way.
§ Subsequent Lords' Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 9, line 8, inclusive, agreed to.
In page 9, lines 23 and 24, leave out 'seven days of and insert 'three days before.'
§ *MR. RITCHIE
Since the Bill left this House the term has been altered to three days. When the Bill was before the Committee seven days was put in, because it was thought that when there was no petty sessional court within seven days of the time when the licence was required it might be very inconvenient if some other means was not provided for the granting of occasional licences. It was provided that under those circumstances two justices might determine such a case. The Lords have struck out seven days and put in three. If this Amendment were accepted it might very well be that instead of an applicant going to the Petty Sessions he might in the case of every application go before the two justices, and the idea was that this privilege should only be used when no opportunity existed of going to the petty sessional court. There are licensing sessions nearly all over the country every week. I do not propose to move to disagree with the Amendment of the Lords, but presently I will move a consequential Amendment, which will secure that in the ordinary course of things the Petty Sessional Court should be resorted to, and that these two justices can only be resorted to when the other Court is not available.
§ MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELI
said he wished to say a few words upon this Amendment. He was sorry that his right hon. friend had given in to the alteration of this seven days to three. Whatever change might be brought about by the consequential Amendment now suggested, it was much clearer to have seven days in the Clause, and he was afraid the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary would leave a loophole, which was the very thing they wished to avoid.
A consequential Amendment made in the Bill:—
In page 9, line 24, by inserting after the word 'required,' the words 'and it is shown to the satisfaction of the justices hereinafter mentioned that it was not practical to make an application to a petty sessional court.' "— (Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments, as far as the Amendment in page 11, line 29, agreed to.
In page 11, line 40, after 'club,' insert '(7.) In the application of this section to Oxford, the Registrar of the Court of the Chancellor of the University shall be substituted for the clerk to the justices in the case of any club mainly composed of Members past or present of the University.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
§ MR. GALLOWAY
said he did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had not explained this Amendment, which was not moved when the Bill was before the House of Commons. He did not wish to delay the House, but he could not understand why they should make a special exemption with regard to the University of Oxford. He had not heard any reasons why this exemption should be made, and for his own part he was of the opinion that all these matters ought to be dealt with by the petty sessional court. There ought to be no exemption made in one particular case which did not exist in regard to any other University. It might be argued that other Universities did not wish to exercise this exemption, but he strongly objected to making an exemption for one particular university for no cause shown without, any discussion, either in this House or before the Government Committee. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some satisfactory reason for this Amendment he should divide the House upon it.
§ *(2.0.) MR. RITCHIE
The hon. Member is quite right in saying that this Amendment was not moved when the Bill was before the House, because I thought it was not desirable that an Amendment of this character should be taken without the House having notice of it, and therefore it was not pressed. I would remind the House that there is a living, moving Court which keeps a sharp eye upon the undergraduates, and it was thought, that being so, that this one question of clubs which are composed in the main of Members of the University ought not to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Vice Chancellor's Court. The reason why no other University is put in is because they have not put forward a claim, or that they do not desire it.
§ SIR WILLIAM ANSON (Oxford University)
said he wished to make it quite clear that the University of Oxford was not by this Amendment asking for any new privilege. The only object of the proposal was to retain the existing jurisdiction in order to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction, and to ensure the continuance of certain disciplinary powers. The Proctors and the City Police worked harmoniously together and they had no difficulty in maintaining order. If there
§ was anything which called for petty sessional jurisdiction there was the Vice Chancellor's Court, which exercised petty sessional jurisdiction under the Act of 1886. The Vice Chancellor could deal with any matter in which the members of the University or their clubs were concerned. For these reasons he hoped the House would not think for a moment that they were asking for anything which was improper or exceptional, and the reason why other universities did not go in for similar privileges was because they did not want them, and because they had not the machinery for exercising those privileges.
§ MR. CONINGSBY DISRAELI
said the hon. Member for Oxford University had just given them a long apology for introducing antiquated machinery into this Bill. This Amendment introduced by the Lords was what Cambridge had done away with long ago, and he was sorry to see this machinery revived in the new century.
§ (2.8.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 18. (Division List No. 381.)
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.911
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir. Alex. F.||Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Churchill, Winston Spencer||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Collings, Rt. Hon, Jesse||Goschen, Hon. George Joachim|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Compton, Lord Alwyne||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)|
|Beach, Rt, Hn Sir Michael Hicks-||Cranborne, Lord||Hambro, Charles Eric|
|Beckett, Ernest William||Crean, Eugene||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hare, Thomas Leigh|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Davenport, William Bromley-||Hay, Hon. Claude George|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Delany, William||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Dickson, Charles Scott||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Doogan, P. C.||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley|
|Caldwell, James||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside|
|Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire||Duke, Henry Edward||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W.)||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Keswick, William|
|Knowles, Lees||Mount, William Arthur||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Langley, Batty||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute||Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Nicholson, William Graham||Sullivan, Donal|
|Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Loder, Gerald Walter' Erskine||Platt-Higgins, Frederick||Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings|
|Long, Rt, Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Lough, Thomas||Pretyman, Ernest George||Valentia, Viscount|
|Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Purvis, Robert||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Lundon, W.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton|
|Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Reid, James (Greenock)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und, Lyne|
|Macdona, John Cumming||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|M'Crae, George||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Majendie, James A. H.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rutherford, John||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfries-sh.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Milvain, Thomas||Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Molesworth, Sir Lewis||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight||TELLERS FOR THE AYES —|
|Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow||Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside||Sir William Walrond and|
|Morrell, George Herbert||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (S rand)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Nannetti, Joseph P,||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid||Weir, James Galloway|
|Groves, James Grimble||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||Priestley, Arthur|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|M'Govern, T.||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Mr. Galloway and Mr.|
|Murnaghan, George||Spear, John Ward||Disraeli.|
§ MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
said he had been requested to thank the Homo Secretary, on behalf of the workmen's clubs, for what he had done in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had satisfied the clubs in the West End of London, as well as those in the East End, and the workmen's clubs throughout the country.