§ As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ *(12.10.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ritchie,) Croydon
moved an Amendment to add the following words— 823Provided that where there is no sitting of a petty sessional court within seven days of the time when the licence is required the consent may be given by any two justices acting for the division and sitting together.He said, I should like to say that I could not accept the proposal made by way of an Amendment by my lion, friend, but I shall be prepared to send a circular round to the justices when this Bill has passed into law, calling attention to this particular point and impressing upon them the necessity of making arrangements by which the business can be conducted in the manner best calculated to suit the needs of the district.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 27, after the word "justices," to insert the words—
Provided that where there is no sitting of a petty sessional court within seven days of the time when the licence is required the consent may be given by any two justices acting for the division and sitting together."—(Mr. Secretary Ritchie.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tonbridge)
moved to omit the last two words "sitting together," in the Amendment of the Home Secretary. He was not quite sure whether the point was really met by what the Home Secretary had just said, and ho desired to make it perfectly clear. The Bill provided that no occasional licence should be granted except in Court. When they were in Committee upstairs he pointed out how exceedingly difficult it would be in the country districts to carry out the Act, owing to the fact that magistrates on county benches did not sit at very frequent intervals, so that there would not be time to give notice. In some cases the magistrates only sat once a month, and it was usually the case that county benches sat only once a fortnight. The question would arise in village sports and cricket matches whether it would be possible for a licensed victualler requiring an occasional licence for the purpose to get it in time. The Home Secretary had endeavoured to meet the point by his Amendment, which provided that the occasional licence might be granted by two justices acting for the division arid sitting together. The real difficulty was to be found in the words "sitting together." A licensed victualler requiring an occational licence might have to go to the next 824 village in order to discover one magistrate, and he then would have to arrange with that magistrate to gofurtherin order to find mother. A great difficulty would thus be caused. Ho did not quite apprehend low the Home Secretary intended to meet that difficulty, but for his own part he would prefer to leave out the words "sitting together." If it were possible to get two magistrates together without causing this inconvenience he would not wish to press the point, as he did not want to obstruct the Bill in any way. The Home Secretary had promised to send an instruction round to the various magistrates, but, he wondered, would that instruction be binding upon them. It seemed to him that a great difficulty might arise, and in order that the matter might be fully discussed he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name. Ho could not help thinking that much inconvenience would arise unless some specific plan were to be adopted whereby it might be possible for those occasional licences to be granted by two magistrates without the proposed restriction.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and sitting together."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'and sitting together' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)
suggested that the difficulty might be met by an Amendment giving power to the justices to take into account the intervals between the sittings of the Court. He desired to move such an Amendment.
§ * MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the hon. Member could not move an Amendment unless Mr. Griffith-Boscawen withdrew that which he had just moved.
§ MR. GRETTON (Derbyshire, S.)
said it appeared to him that the difficulty was a real one, and was very much felt in the rural districts, where occasional licences were often required. Of course in urban districts very much less difficulty was experienced in getting magistrates together and the case properly considered. He urged that the machinery of the Bill should not be unworkable, 825 and that words should not be inserted which would bear a construction which was never intended. The Amendments before the House would, he thought meet the difficulty. It was very possible that the Home Secretary might be able to suggest some other way of meeting it, and although he was not particular about the words, he felt there should lie some security that where occasional licences were required, two magistrates should be got together to consider the application for it to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested a way out of the difficulty, but he (Mr. Gretton) submitted that was no way at all, and that it was merely a pious opinion expressed by the Home Secretary during his term of office, and upon which the magistrate might or might not act. It was quite possible that the magistrates might hold the view that the law was not intended to be construed in the manner suggested by the Home Secretary, and as the matter stood, unless the right hon. Gentleman could suggest another way, he (Mr. Gretton) should support the Amendment.
§ MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON (Belfast. S.)
hoped the Home Secretary would adhere to his decision. A considerable amount of annoyance was caused in Ireland, where occasional licences were granted by one magistrate only. On many occasions whore demonstrations and meetings took place the greatest possible annoyance had been caused by one magistrate being got at and giving an occasional licence, which had the effect of disturbing the peace of the district and causing most unfortunate results. He knew, of course, that this Bill did not extend to Ireland, but he nevertheless trusted that the Home Secretary would adhere to his decision.
§ * MR. RITCHIE
This Clause was intended to deal with a very great evil, and, however inconvenient it may be, its insertion was intentional. There ought to be some safeguard more than exists under the present law for securing proper consideration for the granting of these occasional licences, which in the past may have been too freely given, and without proper consideration, and which 826 have proved a source of very considerable evil. The question then arises as to how the convenience of the public is to be met without allowing the evils which now exist. We therefore propose that these occasional licences shall be granted in court, and not, as at present, that a man who wants such a licence can go round to any justice and get it. We say that the police must have proper notice, so that they can communicate with the bench of magistrates, and the licence will then be granted in the ordinary way of business of the court. It is alleged that — and especially in rural districts—magistrates do not always meet once a week, and that, indeed, in some districts they only meet once a month, and that cases might arise in which great inconvenience would be caused by the inability to obtain occasional licences. I promised in Committee that the matter should be thoroughly considered and dealt with, and it is in accordance with that promise that I have proposed this Amendment. The House will see that I adhere to the principle of the Clause in providing that the matter shall be considered by two justices who are sitting together. It is proposed by my hon. friend that the words sitting together" should be omitted, and that any two justices separately may grant the licence. That is, of course, an improvement on the existing law, but only a very small improvement, and there would be but little more difficulty I in getting two justices than in getting one. In fact, the increased safeguards would be very little. What I want is that not only two magistrates shall give the occasional licence, but that they shall have an opportunity of consulting together upon the merits or demerits of the application, and the Amendment if carried would destroy that precaution entirely. I have made it my business to inquire from some of my hon. friends in this House who are acting justices as to the effect of this provision. One among them, a highly respectable Member of this House, tells me that the bench of justices in his district does not meet more than once a month, but there is not the slightest difficulty in getting magistrates together to deal with matters calling for consideration in the interval. If that be the case in his district it 827 would be equally the case in other districts. I propose to send a circular round' calling attention to one or two matters" in which the law will be altered by this Bill, and I will take care to point out "that it will be necessary for them to make an arrangement—either by rota or some other way—for the hearing of these applications. I know the House will rely upon my carrying out this undertaking, and I think the difficulty will be solved in that manner. I will do my best to carry it out, and I can assure the House in this particular case, as in others, I will do my utmost to prevent unnecessary inconvenience being caused by the provision.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAUKICE (Wiltshire, Cricklade)
I hope that the Home Secretary will stand firm by his decision, as I do not think any hardship would arise from the practice proposed by the Bill. The duties of magistrates in petty sessions have so increased that they can now be found very easily. Further, there are very few places in the country where the sittings are held a long time apart. Where magistrates meet only once a month in rural districts there is a great amount of business to be transacted, and, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, the result of this proposal will be to impose a new class of duty upon two magistrates. That being so, I really do not think that the House should go out of its way to increase the facilities for these occasional licences being granted in what is called a "hole and corner" manner. The present arrangements are bad enough, and what we really want is to bring all these things before the public in court. I know that the magistrates connected with country districts are not at all opposed to the change, and I hope the House will support the proposal of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN
said that the Home Secretary had treated them so fairly in indicating the course he proposed to take in order to meet the difficulty, that he desired to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.828
§ SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH(on behalf of Mr. J. W. WILSON) (Manchester, N. W.)
moved that "notice of the consent shall be sent for record to the clerk to the Court." The object of this Amendment was that there should be a record kept of these occasional licences. The general opinion, which lie was glad to endorse, was that these licences should only be granted in open Court, and that being so, a record would be preserved.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words "of which consent notice shall be sent for record to the Clerk of the said Court."—(Sir William Houldsworth.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
§ * MR. RITCHIE
(in answer to a suggestion that this was merely extending what would be done if the consent had been given in Court): No, that is not so. It does not go on the record at all.
MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)
thought that even if that was not the case it would be desirable that a record should be preserved of occasional licences. Such a duty would not involve a serious amount of work, and it would certainly conduce to the public benefit.
§ * MR. RITCHIE
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that this Court is a Court of Record. Occasional licences are given out, and that is all; but the person possessing the licence has to produce it in the case of any subsequent proceedings. I think it may be desirable that the police should be informed, and if my hon. friend will withdraw his Amendment I will move to insert the words—"of which consent notice shall be sent to the police."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add the words "of which consent notice shall be sent to the police."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."829
§ MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W. R., Holmfirth)
suggested that the word "forthwith" should be appended.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
suggested that the Amendment should read that notice should be sent to the superintendent of police.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment amended, by inserting, alter "the," the words "superintendent of the."—(Mr. Gibson Bules.)
§ Question, "That those words, as amended, be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.
§ Question, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ MR. GOULDING (Wiltshire, Devizes)
moved as an Amendment to add that—It shall not be necessary to give notice to one of the overseers of the parish, township, or place in which the house or shop in respect of which the application to be made is situate.He contended that notice to the over seers of application for the granting or the transfer of a licence was absolutely useless, and that no advantage would be gained by serving the notice on the overseers.
In page 2, line 2, after this word 'made,' to insert the words, '(2) It shall not be necessary to give notice to one of the overseers of the parish, township, or place in which the house or shop in respect of which the application to be made is situate.'"—(Mr. Goulding.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words Le there inserted."
§ * MR. RITCHIE
If this Amendment were to he accepted, no good object would be served, because a good many notices of licensing matters have to be served on the overseers, who are in the habit of receiving a large number of notices of all kinds under various Acts. I do not want to upset the principle which exists at present, by making an exception in an isolated case.
§ * MR. GROVES (Salford, S.)
looked upon the duties of overseers in regard to applications for new licences somewhat in the light of a survival of an. old worn-out custom. As the Bill provided for the notice to be given in a different way, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment. It. should be the intent on of Parliament to facilitate business, and get rid of old-fashioned and irritating, regulations. The giving of this notice would put the applicant to more trouble, and would add to the already considerable burden of the overseeers.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
failed to see what purpose would be served by retaining this unusual provision in the Bill, or what right the overseers had to such notice. It was entirely a matter for the police, and he could not see where the overseers came in. Was it any argument to say that because the overseers got notice of other matters they should have notice of this kind of application? He failed to see where the argument applied. The notice to the overseers was an act of supererogation, and surely unless some other argument could be brought forward the Home Secretary ought not to insist upon this notice being given. He was not a licensed victualler, nor was be a Customs officers—but he was a consumer of the article that was vended under a licence, and ho could perfectly well understand the necessity of giving notice of the application to the police. The overseers were doubtless important officers at some previous time in our history; they represented the parish, and were no doubt the organs of general parochial publicity. That, however, was not the case in the present day, and any argument that by giving notice to the overseer they would ensure further publicity surely could not be seriously put forward.
§ MR. GALLOWAY
hoped that the Home Secretary would agree to the Amendment, because it seemed quite unnecessary for notice to be given to the overseers, and no useful purpose could possibly be served by such a step being taken. Under the Bill notice had to be sent to the clerk to the justices and to the superintendent of police; it had to be 831 affixed to the church door, and it had to I be advertised in the local paper. No one could contend that by sending another notice to the overseers further publicity would be gained. The only persons who would not know of the application would be those who neither went to church not-read the local newspapers—and surely within that category no one would be found who either cared about the notice or could assist in the due administration of the law. He hoped the Home Secretary would dispense with that which would serve no useful purpose, but would merely add unnecessary labour.
§ not think this is a matter of very great importance, but at the same time I think we had better leave the Bill as it stands. I regard the overseers as entirely apart from the parish.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)
If the Amendment be accepted, it will be a departure from the uniformity of the Bill. I think the House ought not to accept it without very strong reason being shown. In the matter of licences we ought not to diminish any safeguards, and a notice to the overseers is not a very expensive matter.
§ (12.40.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 13; Noes, 126. [Division List No. 264].831
|Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Robinson, Brooke|
|Carlile, William Walter||Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Flower, Ernest||Ratcliff, R. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Remnant, James Farquharson||Mr. Goulding and Mr. Groves.|
|Gretton, John||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Acland-Hood, Cap. Sir Alex. F.||Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Line.)||Purvis, Robert|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead||Graham, Henry Robert||Pym, C. Gny|
|Allen, Charles P(Gloue., Stroud||Gunter, Sir Robert||Rea, Russell|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||Reddy, M.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbt. Henry||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Hay den, John Patrick||Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Bri'side)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Horner, Frederick William||Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Staly bridge|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manc'r)||Horniman, Frederick John||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds)||Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bathurst. Hon. Allen Benj.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Jacoby, James Alfred||Russell, T. W.|
|Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mic'l Hicks||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Shaw-Stowart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Bill, Charles||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex))||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Black, Alexander William||Joyce, Michael||Spear, John Ward|
|Boland, John||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. K.(N'rthants|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-||Law, Andrew Benar(Glasgow)||Stanley, Lord (Lanes)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Leng, Sir John||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Caldwell, James||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stroyan, John|
|Cameron, Robert||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Tollemache, Henry James|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh're||Lundon, W.||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||M'Govern, T.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready||Manners, Lord Cecil||Tuke, Sir John Battv|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Mortoo, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Mount, William Arthur||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mowbray. Sir Robert Gray C.||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Murphy, John||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Edwards, Frank||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Williams, Rt. Hn. Pow'll(Birm.|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||O'Brien, Kendal,(T'pp'rary Md||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)||O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath|
|Finch, George H.||O'Shee, James John||Word, James|
|Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatync||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Wylie, Alexander|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Parker, Sir Gilbert||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Sir William Walrond and|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Mr. Anstruther.|
§ (12.55.) MR. RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)
moved some verbal Amendments to Clause 19. He said the Clause was introduced into the Bill, when it was before the Committee upstairs, by the hon. Member for Leicester. He had taken the opportunity of consulting with that hon. Gentleman, with whose acquiescence he had placed three Amendments on the Paper.
§ * MR. RITCHIE
, in agreeing with the Amendments, said: The object of the Clause is perfectly clear. No one will say that persons who were liable for costs should be relieved of such liability at the expense of the country. The object is to ensure that the justices who act in the public interest shall not be personally rendered liable for any costs that may be incurred in appealing against their decisions.
§ The Amendments were agreed to.
§ * MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN
rose to move, as an Amendment, to add to Clause 20, "Except where there are no other suitable premises available." lie understood that some compromise had already been made on this Clause when it was before the Committee. The object of the Clause was to compel a parish or place, where-over possible, to provide a proper courthouse within a certain time, in order that what was very often objectionable might be avoided. It was clear that this could not be carried out unless there was some exception allowed, otherwise a case would happen in which there were no available premises for the purpose. He agreed that, on the whole, it was far better that petty sessions should not be held in licensed premises, and if the Home Secretary would meet him by giving a rather later date for the provision of a proper court-house he would not press his Amendment. It was generally agreed that the date mentioned in the Bill did not provide adequate time in which to enable the various local authorities to provide a proper court-house. Perhaps it would facilitate business if, as he understood was the case, the Home Secretary was willing to accept the year 1910 for 1904 in the Clause, in that event he would alter his Amendment, and make it simply to omit 1904 and insert 1910.
In page 9, line 20, to leave out '1904,' and insert '1910.'"—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
I have an Amendment on the Paper with a similar object to that moved by the last speaker. I quite feel that it is absolutely necessary in special cases to give adequate time for the provision of proper courthouses, and perhaps it is best to err on the side of giving full extension of time for the work. Although 1910 may seem a little long, I prefer to accept that figure and pass the rest of the Clause.
§ Colonel PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)
sincerely hoped that the Home Secretary would not accept the alternative. He was absolutely amazed at the length of time proposed to be given. There were very few cases to which the Clause would apply, and surely, as this year was 1902, the limit of 1904 allowed by the Bill was sufficient for the purpose. He trusted the Home Secretary would not go beyond 1905 in any event.
§ * MR. RITCHIE
We must not draw the line too tightly. Having regard to the fact that the noble Lord (Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice) at whose instance, I believe, this Clause was moved in Committee assents to this proposition, 1 do not intend to oppose it.
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
said he had had the pleasure of addressing a Duke in the back room of a public house where the petty sessions had to be held. It would be difficult in many instances to obtain a suitable building for the purpose unless it was erected at the expense of the county.
§ MR. WHITTAKER (Yorkshire, W. R., Spen Valley)
suggested that five yearn extension would be ample for the purpose.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE
moved a proviso that a coroner's inquest should not be held on licensed premises where other premises had been provided. He said the Committee struck out the words "coroner's inquest" on the motion of an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency. But in Scotland there were no such inquiries, and he could 835 not help thinking that the Committee was perhaps a little misled Try the experience of Scotland. He wished to ask the House once more to consider the question. It was said that there would be inflicted great hardships in some places owing to the fact that it would be impossible to find any place except in licensed premises, such as a public-house or hotel, suitable for the holding of inquests. He admitted that was so, and the qualified words, though unnecessary in regard to petty sessions, were necessary in the case of coroner's inquests. He had, therefore, tried to meet the views of the hon. Member who struck out the proposal in Committee by adding the words, "where no other premises are available for such inquest." He desired to say in support of this proposal that he had received communications from every part of England, from magistrates, county councillors, chief constables, and other officials, expressing approval of it. Last week he attended a meeting of the executive of the County Council Association, one of the largest meetings he had ever attended, when a unanimous resolution was carried in favour of this proposal, and the secretary was directed to send a copy of it to the Home Secretary. There were some cases, no doubt, where except licensed premises, no available premises could be obtained. Two striking cases of this necessity had been communicated to him by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House. One was a case where a terrible colliery accident had taken place and ten people were killed. There was a great deal of excitement, and it was quite impossible to hold the inquiry except in a public hall or some other large room. In the place where this accident happened there was no large hall, or, in fact, public hall at all, but there was an hotel in the neighbourhood which had a room sufficiently large for the purpose. In another case several dead bodies were washed ashore near a fishing village in Yorkshire, and the only place available was a public house. As a rule, it was not very difficult to find a suitable place, and many counties had already anticipated this legislation. He was really simply asking the House to bring up the backward counties to the level of the forward ones. He had received a communication from the West Riding of 836 Yorkshire, which he understood had been sent to all Yorkshire Members, and from that lie understood that in Yorkshire arrangements had been made by the Standing Joint Committee, with the approval of the chief constable, under which every place in the county drew up a schedule of places where Inquests might be held. Where there were public halls they were scheduled, and where there was none arrangements were made with private individuals to allow their houses to be used. That arrangement had worked well, and he hoped, if the Amendment were carried, the practice would be gradually extended to other counties. He might point out that his Amendment would not prevent, inquests being held in hotels and public-houses in cases of necessity.
In page 9, line 24, after the Word 'liquors,' to insert the words 'nor shall any coroner's inquest be held on such licensed premises where other premises have been provided for such inquest.'"—(Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice).
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
contended that the Amendment reduced the Clause to an absurdity. Was it likely, when a local authority had provided proper premises, that inquests would be held on licensed premises? The Amendment was nonsense.
§ * MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)
suggested that the latter part of the Amendment should be made to read—Where other suitable premises have been provided for the purpose.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
thought that there was a good deal in the criticism of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The real difficulty was to make the authorities responsible for an attempt to get other premises if they could. For that purpose the original words of the noble Lord were better, with the addition suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham.
§ * MR. RITCHIE
said the holding of inquests was a very different matter from holding licensing meetings. An inquest might be of sudden occurrence, and no time could be spent in hunting about the neighbourhood in order to find out whether premises wore available.
§ SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)
did not think that the words proposed to be added would do any good. It was simply laying a trap for the unwary, and he hoped the House would reject the insertion of the words.
§ of the word "suitable."
Proposed Amendment amended—
By inserting after the word 'other' the word 'suitable.'—(Mr. Ritchie.)
§ (1.13.) Question put, "That those words, us amended, be there inserted."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes,56. (Division List No. 265.)837
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Horniman, Frederick John||Reddy, M.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Redmond, John K. (Waterford)|
|Allen, Charles P., Gloue.(Stroud||Jacoby, James Alfred||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Auston, Sir William Reynell||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Reid Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Anstruther, H. T.||Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge|
|Bam, Colonel James Kobert||Joyce, Michael||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Law. Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Bill, Charles||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Russell, T. W.|
|Black, Alexander William||Leamy, Edmund||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Baland, John||Leng, Sir John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Lewis, John Herbert||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants|
|Brigg, John||Lloyd-George, David||Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Lundon, W.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Caldwell, James||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G.(Oxf'd Univ.|
|Cameron, Robert||M'Govern, T.||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r||Maxwell, W J. H(Dumfriesshire||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Mooney, John J.||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward|
|Delauy, William||Murphy, John||Tully, Jasper|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)||Wason, Eugene ((Clackmannan)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Newdigate, Francis Alexander||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||Nicol, Donald Ninian||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Edwards, Frank||Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh, N.|
|flavin, Michael Joseph||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Wodehouse, Rt. Ho. E. R.(Bath)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.||Wood, James|
|Hain, Edward||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Wylie, Alexander|
|Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford||O'Shee, James John||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Haslett, Sir James Horner||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Purvis, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Ratcliff, R. F.||Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice|
|Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Rea, Russell||and Mr. Nussey.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.||Graham, Henry Robert||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Balcarres, Lord||Greene, Sir E W(B'ry S Edmonds||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Gretton, John||Pym, C. Guy|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Chris'ch.)||Groves, James Grimble||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin||Gunter, Sir Robert||Robinson, Brooke|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Rolles'on, Sir John F. L.|
|Carlile, William Walter||Horner, Frederick William||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Spear, John Ward|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Stroyan, John|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||M'Iver, Sir Lewis) Edinburgh W||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton|
|Finch, George H.||Manners, Lord Cecil||Williams, Rt. Hn. J Powell-(Birm.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Mount, William Arthur|
|Flower, Ernest||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)||Mr. Galloway and Mr. Remnant.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Palmer Walter (Salisbury)|
§ MR. GALLOWAY
said he did not know whether his right hon. friend would accept the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper, although he had no doubt he agreed with the principle of it. As to whether this Amendment was the best form in which to carry out the principle, he should leave it to the Home Secretary to determine, for he did not wish to press the matter in regard to the actual words to be used.
In page 10, line 38, after the word 'club,' to insert the words 'such fee, in the case of clerks to justices holding office at the passing of this Act, to be taken by them for their own use.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. RITCHIE
I entirely agree with the object of my hon. friend in moving this Amendment. A certain amount of additional work will be placed upon the justices' clerks, for which they ought to be remunerated, but it would be contrary to modern legislation to pay them in the way suggested, and it would be very unwise to introduce this new element in this Clause. Recognising as I do that these clerks will have to do more work than they do now, I shall, in a circular which I propose to send round, draw the attention of the local authorities to the fact that additional work has been put upon these clerks, and I shall suggest that they should recommend for the sanction of the Home Secretary some additional payment to meet the additional work which these clerks will in future have to undertake.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (1.25.) MR. GALLOWAY
said he thought that Clause 25 was somewhat ambiguous, and he was confirmed in that opinion by several hon. and learned Members, all of whom had given a different version as to their construction of the Act. This Amendment had for its object the stopping of the sale of liquor to the agent of a member of the club. He thought the House 840 would agree that a member should not be allowed to send his wife or child or any other person to purchase intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises of the club. The Home Secretary was induced to accept this Clause by a case which came before the courts, in which the learned judges expressed very strongly their opinion that something should be done to meet this evil. The words he was moving to leave out would restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors to members on the premises, and would stop entirely the sale off the premises. He thought hon. Members would agree that a club was not a place where intoxicating liquor should be sold for off consumption. If clubs were to be allowed on any large scale to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises that would be establishing a way of evading the revenue, and would inflict a great injustice upon those who had to take out licences. He was induced to make this Amendment after the discussion which took place in Grand Committee, and he had since made some inquiries by various chief constables as to their opinion in regard to such an Amendment as he had moved. He asked them if they thought such an amendment of the law would assist the administration of the Act, and out of sixty-five chief constables to whom he applied about fifty replied stating that they entirely agreed with the Amendment. He agreed that an injustice might be done to clubs which had no desire to evade the principle laid down in this Bill that clubs should be properly conducted. He admitted that it would be a great hardship to prevent a member of a club from obtaining for his own consumption a flask full of spirits which he would not be able to do if these words were not left in. He fully admitted that there was a good deal to be said both for and against the Amendment, but it ought not to be beyond their ability to draw up some form of words which would deal with the evil which existed. They could not have two laws in this matter. The rich man's club must be placed in the same position with regard to the law as the poor man's club, but nothing should be done which would unnecessarily irritate clubs which were properly conducted. On the other hand, no kind of clubs should be allowed to evade their proper raison d'être on an 841 extensive scale. He thought the House should have an expression of opinion from the Home Secretary in regard to this evil. Would it be possible in sending out the notices relating to the Bill to draw the attention of the police throughout the country to the evil which was known to exist, with the view to their dealing with what he believed to be a great scandal. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he had no desire to inflict hardship on the clubs which were ready to conform to the extra restrictions placed upon them.
In page 11, line 11, to leave out the words 'except to a member on the premises.'"—(Mr. Galloway.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. RITCHIE
My hon. friend has stated very truly and properly, I think, that the existing state of things is attended with very great inconvenience. As a matter of fact, there are in some places clubs which, although supposed to exist for the members, are little better than unlicensed public houses. Messengers are sent to and from them just in the same way as they might be sent to and from public houses. I think that is a great evil. I do not say that no evil could possibly exist under the Bill with the words which we have inserted, but certainly this great evil in connection with messenger-sending is actually dealt with by the Clause. My hon. friend would like to go further, but he sees the, difficulty, and I see the difficulty. On the whole, I think I have gone as far as it is proper and reasonable to go. I am sure the House will agree with my hon. friend that we must try, if we can, to enlist on our side in connection with this matter the best opinion of the best clubs, including working men's clubs. I know that the great club organisation—the Club Union—which comprises a very large number of clubs, not political, but social working men's clubs, are as anxious as the House can possibly be that the evils we recognise should be suppressed. I am sure that if we were to go as far as we would be going by leaving out the words referred to, we would not carry with us the favourable opinion of 842 these clubs, and that would do a very great deal of harm. It would be practically impossible if the e words were omitted to prevent the sale of liquor to a member of a club for consumption off the premises. In that case I do not know how this provision of the law could be worked. It would never do to cross-examine club members as to their purchases in order to be sure that they would not carry any liquor away from the club, or to have a policeman always at the door to see whether it was carried away or not. Such a provision would be greatly resented by that class of clubs which we desire to enlist on our side. To enact a Clause which would prevent a man from filling his flask at his club would be to carry the law to such an extent as to raise a great storm of opposition to the law. We have gone as far as we can go, and I hope my hon. friend will be content with the Clause as it stands.
§ Colonel PILKINGTON
said that to allow clubs to be set up to sell liquor for consumption off the premises would be to introduce a very great evil. The clubs might become a sort of unlicensed public houses, open at all hours when the public houses were closed. They would also be open on Sundays. He knew the working classes pretty well, and he did not believe they would feel any grievance if their clubs were subjected to the proposed restriction. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.
§ * MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth)
said that he had an Amendment on the Paper similar to that moved by the hon. Member for South West Manchester. He supported the hon. Member's Amendment on the ground that it would help to carry out what the Home Secretary had said was the object of the Bill, namely, to hit the dishonest trader. The right hon. Gentleman had said that one of the objections to supporting it was the difficulty there would be in enforcing the law. He did not take that view. It would be very difficult to have one law for the rich club, and another for the poor club. It was well known to be the custom for a member of a club in London to send to it for a bottle of wine or for the purpose of filling his flask. It might be an inconvenience not to have that right, but on the other hand it would remove a great temptation 843 in connection with another class of club. If it Was a question between the convenience of members of clubs in the West End of London, and the diminution of illicit drinking on the part of Members of the worst class of bogus clubs, he certainly thought that the balance should be thrown on the side of suppressing drinking in connection with bogus clubs There might be cases of sudden illness, for which there might be no means of immediately providing the stimulants required. It would be convenient then to send to a club, supposing it were Sunday and the shops were shut. Perhaps it was a fantastic suggestion, but the bona fide traveller might be admitted within the Clause. Supposing a traveller started hurriedly on a journey, there was no reason why he should not take what he wanted with him. But the fact remained that people as a rule were able to provide themselves with what they required in their own homes. People in a humble class of life could get their supplies from their grocers. He did not want to be too severe and drastic in preventing people getting what they required from their grocers. So long as these opportunities were open to both classes—rich and poor—he saw no reason why they should not strike a hard blow at the worst class of club, which was responsible for some of the most extreme forms of drinking. There were stories which might be verified of clubs which existed purely for the sale of liquor for drinking off the premises—clubs held, for instance, in barns. Such clubs brought odium and ill-fame upon the trade. No one was more concerned in the suppression of these clubs than the trade itself. He could fortify himself with the opinion of a well-known learned judge, who, when adjudicating on a case of that nature, said that if the members could take liquor away, it would, in his opinion, go a long way to show that it was not a bona fide club. It was in order that that kind of club should be suppressed that he supported the Amendment.
§ (1.45.) SIR J. FERGUSSON (Man Chester, N. E.)
said he would be obliged to vote against the Amendment if it went to a division. This was a matter on which there might be difference of opinion. In his constituency a working men's club was in the habit of having an annual picnic, and would it not be hard if 844 the members were not allowed to take the drink for the picnic luncheon out of their own club? It was also the habit of certain West End clubs to supply their members with hampers for the races and other expeditions, and why should not the working men's clubs have the same facilities? He was all in favour of putting down the abuse which they all deplored, but they would be going too far if they prevented members from purchasing liquor for their own consumption off the premises.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)
said that the Home Secretary had not exaggerated when he said that some of these clubs were not conducted as they ought to be, but those were only an insignificant portion of the whole. If the Amendment were carried, he was quite certain they would be interfering with the legitimate liberty of a great number of clubs against which no charge whatever was made were they to prohibit members taking a reasonable amount of liquor not to be consumed m the premises. They must do what hey could to encourage the proper conduct of the clubs, but it would inflict a great injustice on a great number of well conducted clubs.
§ MR. GALLOWAY
said he would appeal to the House to grant leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No, no."] He was sure the House would sympathise with him, because, if his Amendment were not withdrawn, he would not please his friends.
§ * MR. GROVES
said he could assure the hon. Member for South-West Manchester that if he stuck to his amendment his friends would veer round to him again. There was one matter which had not been mentioned in the course of the debate, and that was that the Majority Report distinctly recognised the proposal embodied in the Amendment. The Report said—The sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption off the promises should be strictly prohibited";while the Minority Report said that any such sale should be deemed illicit. When they found the two Reports, which went very fully into the whole matter, agreeing in their recommendations—although he did not pin his faith always to such 845 a convergence of opinion—he thought it was worthy of consideration. He thought the danger had not been exaggerated, and that the possibility of evil which existed might be cured by the Amendment. Surely some safeguard might also be devised whereby a member could still get his hamper for his picnic. The evil that the Amendment sought to cure was very serious and dangerous, and one which occurred frequently. He failed to see why clubs, which were unlicensed premises, and could be kept open for any length of time, should be able to afford facilities for the consumption of drink on or off the premises when all the licensed houses were closed. He knew that in many districts there were constant streams of messengers to clubs, on Sundays and week days, and that, although those messengers would not be served inside the club, the member would make a practice of being served himself, carrying the liquor some little distance away, and giving it to the messenger to take home. This evil would be perpetuated under the Bill, and he thought the Amendment was one which ought to commend itself to the common sense of the House.
§ * MR. DISRAELI
said he quite appreciated the difficulty of judging this question, but he looked upon the Amendment as one of the most important character, and the House should deal with it in the broadest spirit possible. Clubs were not established for drinking, but for social purposes. Dr. Johnson described a friend of his as a good fellow because he was a "clubable man." He did not mean by that a man who went to his club to fetch away liquor to drink quietly, but one who rejoiced in the company of his friends. Anyone who represented a Lancashire or Cheshire constituency, which was the home of the working man's club, must know that the difficulty met by the clause in the Bill was increasing. The clause was the very essence of animportant part of the Bill, and, unless they did something to stop the free sale of liquor from unlicensed public houses, they would not be going a step further in the promotion of temperance amongst the working classes. He should certainly support the Amendment.
§ MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN
said the House was very much interested in the sudden conversion of the two hon. Members in regard to the Majority Report of the Royal Commission. Although the Majority and Minority Reports were in favour of stopping the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises, there was a more important factor to be considered, and that was, whether public opinion would put up with it. Although the clubs had gone with the Home Secretary on the Bill, and had allowed every sort of restriction to be placed upon them, they had indicated that they could not stop the serving of a member. It would be a disaster if the working of the Bill were jeopardised because they went a step farther and tried to force on the clubs legislation which they could not tolerate. The bogus club was abolished, so far as it could be, by the Bill, and most clubs would become highly respectable places. He could not see what harm would result if a member was allowed to go himself and fetch liquor from his club for his own consumption at home. It was better that he should do that than go to a public house. They had already stopped the greater evil — the fetching by messengers. He hoped if the Amendment was not withdrawn it would be negatived.
§ Colonel WELBY (Taunton)
suggested that, instead of leaving out the words referred to, they should arrive at some sort of compromise by inserting "in sealed or stoppered vessels "—[Cries of "No, no"]—or "for the purpose of his own consumption." That would stop the taking away of beer or other liquors in open jugs or cans.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said that the extremely able argument of the hon. Member had very nearly convinced him that he was going to vote against the Amendment. Both the Majority and Minority Reports were agreed on the point dealt with by the clause. As to the question of bogus clubs, he wanted to know if hon. Member sinsinuated that these bogus clubs, which were established for one purpose, were really used for another. He thought that sufficient securities were taken in the Bill against the formation 847 of bogus clubs in the Excise sense. If the Committee had accepted these clubs, as they had done in this part of the Bill, under certain securities, they ought to put a certain amount of trust in them. What they ought to rely upon was the good sense of the members, and the efficacy of the rules governing those clubs. If the rules permitted a club to be carried on for any other than the proper purpose for which it was founded, it would very soon find itself in difficulties. A provision of this kind must apply to all clubs, and he could not conceive members of the Carlton Club going out with a bottle of champagne in each pocket in order to hold a kind of al fresco symposium in the Green Park. The objection that had always been felt to temperance legislation by the people of this country was not because they did not like temperance, but because in temperance legislation they saw a great deal of interference with the liberty of the subject. In
§ passing a well-intentioned Act like this, the Committee should not interfere with the liberty of the subject, and the Amendment, in his view, would unduly interfere with this liberty.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said that the principle to bear in mind was whether the Committee should assist in the establishment of good clubs or not. Men did not go to clubs in order to carry away drink. They went to clubs for social purposes—to see and talk to their friends and acquaintances; and if they wanted something to drink, he certainly did not see why they should not have it. His idea was that leaving these words in would greatly retard the movement of establishing bona fide working men's clubs. Therefore, he should vote for the omission of the words.
§ (2.3.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 266.) (2.17.)849
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Fergusson, RtHn. SirJ.(Manc'r||Lundon, W.|
|Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift|
|Anson. Sir William Reynell||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Fisher, William Hayes||M'Govern, T.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry||FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-||M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh W|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund||M'Kean, John|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Flavin, Michael Joseph||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamst'w|
|Baldwin, Alfred||Flower, Ernest||Morton, ArthurH. A.(Deptford|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r||Flynn, James Christopher||Mount, William Arthur|
|Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds||Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick, S. W||Murphy, John|
|Balfonr, Kenneth R.(Christch.||Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.||Murray, RtHn. A. Grah'm(Bute|
|Bill, Charles||Galloway, William Johnson||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Black, Alexander William||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Greene, Sir EW(B'ry SEdm'nds||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Boland, John||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Bond, Edward||Gretton, John||Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Gunter, Sir Robert||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Hain, Edward||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.|
|Caldwell, James||Haslett, Sir James Horner||O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Mara, James|
|Carlile, William Walter||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-||O'Shee, James John|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hayter, Rt. Hon. SirArthurD.||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Platt Higgins, Frederick|
|Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r||Horner, Frederick Wm.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)||Rasch, Major Frederic Carne|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Delany, William||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)||Redmond, John E.(Waterford)|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Lawaon, John Grant||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Leamy, Edmund||Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries|
|Doogan, P. C.||Leng, Sir John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Douglas, Right Hon. A. Akers-||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Renshaw, Charles Bine|
|Elibank, Master of||Loug, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Robinson, Brooke|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Royds, Clement, Molynenx||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Tritton, Charles Ernest||Woodhouse, SirJ. T.(Huddersfd|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward||Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson|
|Sheehan, Daniel Daniel||Valentia, Viscount||Wrigntson, Sir Thomas|
|Simeon, Sir Barrington||Wason, JohnCatheart(Orkney)||Wyrie, Alexander|
|Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants||Williams, RtHnJ Pow'll-(Birm.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Stock, James Henry||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth|
|Strachey, Sir Edward||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Stroyan, John||Wilson. J. W.(Worcestersh, N.)||Sir William Walrond and|
|Talbot, Rt. Hn..J. G(Oxf'd Univ.||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)||Mr. Anstruther.|
|Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden||Horniman, Frederick John||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Arrol, Sir William||Jacoby, James Alfred||Russell, T. W.|
|Austin, Sir John||Johnston, William (Belfast)||Spear, John Ward|
|Balcarres, Lord||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Barlow, John Emmott||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sullivan, Donal|
|Bartley, George C. T.||Lewis, John Herbert||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Lloyd-George, David||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Brigg, John||Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley|
|Burns, John||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Cameron, Robert||Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.||Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)|
|Colomb, SirJohnCharlesReady||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton|
|Corbetr, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Mooney, John J.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Crombie, John William||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Davies M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Nussev, Thomas Williams||Wood, James|
|Edwards, Frank||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens||Young, Samuel|
|Farquharson, Dr. Robert||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Grant, Corrie||Purvis, Robert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Groves, James Grimble||Rea, Russell||Mr. Lucas and Mr.|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Richards, Henry Charles||Disracli.|
Bill read a second time.
§ *(2.45.) MR. RITCHIE
said the object of the Amendment standing on the Paper in his name was to deal with clubs established simply for the sale of liquor, and for the purpose of profit to those who supplied the liquor. He begged to move.
In page 11, line 36, after 'members,' insert 'or (h) that the supply of intoxicating liquor to the club is not under the control of the members or the Committee appointed by the members. (2) For the purpose of determining whether a club is conducted in good faith as a club, the court shall have regard to the nature of the premises occupied by the club."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
§ MR. GALLOWAY
pointed out that there was another class of club on which these words would have bearing, viz., the proprietary club. How was the proprietor of such a club going to carry on his business if the words "under the control of the Members" meant that the control of the sale of intoxicating liquors was to be taken out of the hands of the proprietor and put in the hands of a committee?
§ MR. RITCHIE
said the Amendment to this Clause was directed against what were called bogus clubs. The magistrates were not compelled to strike a club off the register, and so far as the proprietary clubs were concerned they would be very easily able to accommodate themselves to the requirements.
§ Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)
desired to move the addition of the following words at the end of line 36—(h) that in the case of a club occupying premises in the Principality of Wales, intoxicating liquor is supplied or distributed to members or guests on Sundays.The Home Secretary would, he thought, recognise that throughout the discussion on this Bill, he had supported the Government, and he ought, perhaps, to explain that he moved this Amendment I now on two main grounds—first, because there was a strong feeling in Wales that some such proviso should be inserted in the Bill; and, secondly, because that feeling was not only entertained by the temperance section in Wales, but was largely held by those who were not 851 connected hi any organised way with that section, and by a large number of influential men holding important public positions in the Principality. The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be that in regard to clubs, registered under this Act in Wales, no intoxicating liquors could be sold on Sundays, He ought, perhaps, very briefly to point out that this Amendment was not moved because—
§ MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood you to rule that all Amendments to the Amendment of the Home Secretary were out of order. That being so, I submit that the hon. Member is out of order in moving the present Amendment.
§ MR. SPEAKER
I notice that the Amendment would come in on the same line as that to which the Home Secretary has moved an addition. The hon. Member should have moved it as an Amendment to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. SPEAKER
No, the Amendment has been carried. The hon. Member should have moved to insert it after the word "Members."
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS
asked if there was any way in which he could move his Amendment. The subject was a matter in which great interest was taken in the Principality, and, if possible, he should be glad to move it.
§ SIR ROBERT REID
inquired if it would be possible to move this Amendment, and that of the hon. Member for South West Manchester, as a now Clause.
§ MR. SPEAKER
No; on the Report stage new Clauses are taken before the other proposed Amendments, and that opportunity has now passed.
§ MR. DISRAELI
said he moved the Amendment standing on the Paper in the interest of those who liked to see things done in open court, and not behind people's backs.
In page 12, line 6, to leave out the words 'a justice of the peace is,' and insert the words 'two justices of the peace sitting in petty session.'"—(Mr. Disraeli.)
§ Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
I think this Amendment is an unnecessary and undesirable departure from the ordinary practice, and therefore I cannot accept it.
§ MR. CHARLES SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid.)
thought the Amendment was desirable as a security against possible abuse in certain districts, and appealed to the Government to reconsider the Amendment.
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS
said that this Amendment dealt with one of the difficulties met with in the country districts, about which the Home Office knew a good deal.