HC Deb 06 May 1904 vol 134 cc648-69

[SECOND READING.]

Order for the Second Reading read.

MR. O'NEILL (Antrim, Mid)

said that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill he was happy to say he occupied a rather pleasant position with regard to it, unusually so, because, as far as he knew at present, there was no opposition. It had been approved by the licensed victuallers of Ireland, who were particularly desirous to have this registration; it was also approved by people in favour of temperance reform, and by those who recognised that our indulgence in strong drink had been, and still was, a great distress of which Ireland was the victim. All these agreed that the promotion of temperance was very much interfered with by the establishment of clubs solely and entirely for the purpose of drinking, and not for the ordinary purposes of a club. This Bill was also approved of by the Irish Members on both sides of the House. On the back of the Bill there were eight names, four names of Irish representatives from each side. He deeply regretted that since the names were put on the Bill one of the hon. Members (Mr. McGovern) had been taken away from them. A great many measures had been passed for the furtherance of temperance in the United Kingdom. They bad done, no doubt, a great deal of good, but they were very easily evaded by the establishment of these drinking clubs, which he might call bogus clubs, where drink could be sold at all hours irrespective of those which applied to public houses generally. It was to try to put a stop to these bogus clubs that this Bill was brought in; and he would like the House distinctly to understand that it was in no way aimed at legitimate and genuine clubs established for social purposes. It did not in any way interfere with the freedom or the habits of members of these clubs. The only way it affected them at all was that in future they would have to pay a fee of five shillings, and would be liable, if they did not conduct the club in the proper way, to prosecution. That was to say if sufficient information was given on oath that the club was not managed in a legal and proper manner.

The Licensing Act of 1902 was passed for England and fortunately a large portion of that Act contained powers for the registration of clubs. He was informed that it had had a very beneficial effect. If that Act had done good for England he did not see why there should not be one for Ireland. There was also a Licensing Bill passed last year for Scotland. That Bill, too, dealt with the registration of clubs. The Bill now proposed for the acceptance of the House was word for word the same as the Scotch Bill of last year, with only the necessary alterations to make it apply to Ireland. That Bill having been introduced and carried by the Government, he hoped the Government would help them to carry this Bill to-day. He would merely mention the main provisions of the Bill, without entering into details. In the first place the Bill provided that a registrar should be appointed, who was to be a petty sessions clerk. He was to keep a register of all licensed clubs in his district. When a club desired to get a certificate the secretary or the chairman would have to apply to the registrar, send him a copy of the rules of the club, a list of the names of the members, and also the certificate referred to in the first schedule of the Bill. That schedule contained the terms and form of the certificate which was to accompany the application by a club for registration or renewal, and it would have to be signed by two magistrates, certifying to the best of their knowledge and belief that the club was to be conducted as a bona fide club, and not merely for the supply of excise-able liquor. The registrar had also to give notice of the application for registration in some daily paper circulating in the district; and after that, if no objection was taken in the form provided for in the Bill, the Court should grant a certificate. If objections were taken the Court would then investigate them and grant a certificate or not, as they might think fit. If at the end of twelve months a renewal of the certificate was desired similar forms would have to be gone through. Clause 4 of the Bill provided that the rules of the club qualifying for registration should be strictly laid down, so as to ensure that the club was a genuine and legitimate club, and not merely a bogus club. In the first place the club must be managed by a committee, and no members of that committee, or any servant, should have any kind of personal interest in the sale of intoxicating drink in the club. The names of persons nominated for membership must be posted in a conspicuous place on the club premises for at least a week before their election. The rules would further provide that no visitor would be supplied with any drink except on the invitation of one of the members, and that no drink should be supplied outside the club in any case whatever Clause 5 stated the objections which might be urged against the granting or the renewal of a certificate. The first objection that might be taken was that the application was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Another was that the club was not conducted in good faith as a club. A further one was that where there, was frequent drunkenness on the club's premises, or if the club WHS conducted in a disorderly manner, the certificate should not be granted or renewed. There were other grounds of objection which he need not enumerate. If these objections could be supported by proof a certificate would not be granted or renewed. Clause 6 dealt with the inspection of a club. It provided that if information was given by anyone and laid before a justice of the peace of any county, or divisional magistrate of Dublin metropolitan district, that the club was not being conducted in conformity with the law he might grant a search warrant to the police. The rest of the Bill merely laid down the penalties that might be inflicted for breaches of the law. He sincerely hoped the House would in the interests of temperance agree to the Second Reading of the Bill which he now begged to move.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)

said he did not rise in any spirit of hostility to the Bill or to oppose the passing of the Second Reading. The Government were most anxious that its main provisions should be extended to Ireland for the purpose of securing that bonâ fide workmen's clubs should be registered, and that bogus clubs should be suppressed, and that thereby the cause of temperance might be promoted and drunkenness checked. But he thought it was only fair that he should point out to his hon. friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill some defects in its machinery rather than wait until it was discussed in Committee of the House or in Grand Committee. This Bill was a mere reproduction of certain clauses of the Scotch Bill of last year. The framers of this Bill had two precedents before them, the English Act of 1902, and the Scotch Act of 1903. The procedure under the English system was extremely simple. A club was required to register, and if any persons opened or conducted an unregistered club, or sold liquor in an unregistered club, they were liable to a penalty to be recovered before a Court of summary jurisdiction, with, of course, the accessory appeal to a Court of quarter sessions, which a conviction before a Court of summary jurisdiction always gave. His hon. friend had not followed that precedent, and possibly he was right. He had followed the Scotch system, which was entirely different. But in Scotland there was a law officer who did not exist in Ireland, namely, the sheriff-deputy—an officer of the greatest possible importance. The result was that his hon. friend, as he would see, proposed to give in Ireland to a Court of summary jurisdiction the powers which the Scotch Act gave to the sheriff, and which were inapplicable and not suited to a Court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. He thought his hon. friend would see that this Bill in some respects would be rather ridiculous if that analogy were carried out. Under the Scotch system an appliation must be made by the secretary, and must be signed by a justice of the peace or two county magistrates, who certified in a manner to which he would call attention presently. The application came before a sheriff, who inquired into its merits, and if he approved of the applica- tion he ordered the club to be registered The sheriff was a most important functionary in Scotland. He had all sorts of jurisdictions conferred upon him. He had jurisdiction similar to that of a commissioner in bankruptcy, a County Court Judge, a recorder, a revising barrister, and other judicial officers. He returned writs for elections, he precognosced witnesses, and had other important duties.

If his hon. friend followed him he would see that it would lead to certain confusion in Ireland to give to a Court of summary jurisdiction the powers exercised by a sheriff in Scotland. Let them assume that they started in Dublin to endeavour to carry out this system. The secretary or chairman of a club must come with a certificate, and the certificate must be signed by a divisional magistrate of the Dublin metropolitan district. The application must set out, in accordance with Clause 2, Sub-section 1, the aims and object of the club, and the address of the premises occupied by the club. The magistrate's certificate, as provided for in the first schedule of the Bill, stated that the club was to be conducted as a bonâ fide club. In Dublin, therefore, the certificate would be given by the Judge before whom the application came. In the county district the certificate accompanying the application would have to be signed by two magistrates of the Court before whom the application came. In Scotland the certificate was signed by two ordinary justices, and the application came before another functionary altogether. In the case of an application in Dublin, the divisional magistrate would have to make a preliminary inquiry, and therefore he was hardly suited for the office of reviewing the application when it came before him. It was rather absurd that a certificate should come from the magistrate himself to himself. In reference to the requirement that the application should be published in a paper circulated in the district, he thought probably that in some parts of Ireland it would be impossible. There was another objection in reference to expenses. In the Scotch system which it was proposed to copy, the sheriff was entitled to hear objections from the police authorities end also from the town council of the borough, or from the parish, as the case might be. In Ireland, following the analogy of the Licensing Act, objections might be entertained either from the police or from any parishioner, he had no objection to that. In Scotland there was power to award expenses to the applicant in the case of an unsuccessful objection. That power was struck out of this Bill. He could not see why, if an objection was made against a bonâ fide club, and put that club to a great deal of expense, and was unsuccessful, the club should not be repaid its expenses. There was another provision which required a little consideration. In the Scotch Act it was lawful to sell liquor upon the premises to a member for consumption by himself outside the premises. Under the present Bill a working man, if he so desired, might, under Section 8, get in his club a pint of beer or stout to drink at home. But in the Scotch Act under Section 84 no excisable liquor could be sold for consumption outside the premises of the club except to a member on the premises and for his own consumption, or to a person holding an Excise licence for the sale of such liquor; and every person so doing would be liable to a penalty on summary conviction. Probably his hon. friend was right in omitting any provision permitting the sale of liquor to a person holding an Excise licence; but he thought he should consider whether a bonâ fide working man could not buy liquor at his club for his family.

But the real and serious objection he thought was this. Section 88 of the Scotch Act provided that the decision of the sheriff in dealing with an application for an original certificate, or for the renewal of a certificate, or the cancelling of a certificate, should be final and not subject to review. That, he thought, was a really serious objection which went very much to the foundation of the Bill, and he thought his hon. friend should consider whether he should not either change the tribunal from a Court of summary jurisdiction or give an appeal to the justices in quarter sessions. Now, the Court of summary jurisdiction in Dublin was the first police magistrate; in other parts of Ireland it was the Court of petty sessions. As he had said the appeal was from either of these at present. When they looked back and saw what the sheriff could do, and the consequences which could follow from some of his decisions, he did not think it could be said that the Court of petty sessions or the police magistrate in Dublin should be the final Court, and that there should be no appeal from their decisions. In Section 84 of the Scotch Act provision was made that if liquor was sold to those not authorised to obtain it, every person who paid for such liquor, and every person authorising the sale or supply of such liquor, should be liable to a penalty and be dealt with in a summary manner in the ordinary way. Section 85 of the Scotch Act provided that, if a complaint were made that a club was not properly conducted, the sheriff or magistrate in the burgh might pronounce an order and, on the grounds specified therein, the certificate of registration of the club would be cancelled. Then the decision of the summary Court was by the next section to be reported to the sheriff, who was to make further inquiry, and after such inquiry, having regard to the nature of the offence, he might cancel the certificate. The 86th Section provided that where the finding pronounced by the sheriff was that the club was not entitled to a renewal of its certificate on the ground that the club was not conducted in good faith as a club, or that there was frequent drunkenness on the club premises, or that persons in a state of intoxication were frequently seen to leave the club premises—the result of that provision was that every official of that club, unless he satisfied the Court that the club was so managed or carried on without his knowledge or against his consent, would be liable to a penalty not exceeding for a first offence, £7; for a second offence, whether in connection with the same or another club, £15; and for a third, or subsequent offence, £30. It was quite evident that they could not go behind the decision of the sheriff on these questions, and that all the officials in the club would become liable in those penalties. Therefore, it was most desirable that the tribunal which pronounced conclusively as to the proper mode in which a club should be carried on should be a tribunal other than the petty sessions Court.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

What do you suggest?

MR. ATKINSON

said he would suggest either of two alternatives. If the petty sessions Court was to be retained as the authority to grant the certificate, then there must be an appeal to the Court of quarter sessions; if, on the contrary, the strict analogy of the Scotch Act was to be followed, the natural thing would be to make the County Court Judge the arbiter or substitute for the sheriff in Scotland to whom application should be made. Some change of that kind was absolutely necessary; as would be seen by a reference to the second Section of Clause 9, which provided that where a report was made on conviction, that report was to be made to the sheriff. That became ridiculous when the order was made to the same Court that originally made it. He did not want, by any means, to force his hon. friend to say which alternative he should select. He had no opposition whatever to offer to the Second Reading of the Bill. On the contrary, the Government were most anxious, by every means, to help the hon. Gentleman; and it was for that reason that he had called his hon. friend's attention, and the attention of the House, to those points now, rather than bring them forward in Committee upstairs for the first time.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

said the Bill was, as far as he knew, one which everybody was anxious to have carried. It was a Bill which had been arrived at by compromise between various authorities in Ireland. It was supported by the temperance party on the one side and by the liquor trade on the other; and this being so, it would be in very great danger if the Government had any serious changes to propose in Committee. He considered it a pity these objections were not thrashed out before. He understood that a draft of the Bill was sent tot the Government a considerable time ago, and not one objection was taken. It was improper that where a matter of contention had become a subject of negotiation, and when happily all parties had come to an agreement, then, at the last moment, the Government should suggest objections which had never been suggested before and which might possibly have been the subject of further negotiation and compromise; but which might now possibly prevent the Bill passing at all. What was the meaning of the Government—having the draft of the Bill in their possession and knowing both parties were trying to come to a compromise—remaining silent until a compromise was arrived at, and then stepping in to make mischief, cause dissension, and endanger the whole project. It was a most improper course, but it was quite on a par with the stupidity which governed all affairs in connection with Ireland. This inherent stupidity was not confined to this one Government; it belonged to every one. A little spirit of common sense would have avoided any danger whatever of the Bill being wrecked with these objections. With regard to the objections raised as to jurisdiction, be should object very much to making the County Court Judge the authority, though he should not object to appeal, to the County Court Judge he supposed, from petty sessions. He should reserve his final opinion until he saw what changes took place in Committee. In Committee, the sole blame would rest not upon hon. Members on either side, but upon the bungling and stupidity of the Irish Government interfering in a matter of this kind at the wrong time.

MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)

said he did not intend to raise any objection such as would come within the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Waterford; because his colleague who moved the Second Reading expressly stated that the Bill was not intended in any way to interfere with the ordinary social privileges of clubs as distinguished from the mischief which they all objected to. The real mischief against which the Bill was aimed was shebeening, which should be put down with the strongest possible hand. He concurred that it would be inadvisable to put workmen's clubs under a ban to which higher class clubs were not subjected. There should be one law for all. In no part of the Bill, however, was a club defined, and the Bill as it stood might apply to a Bar mess, or to a philanthropic or scientific society which only met at stated intervals. He thought it would be undesirable to put such associations to the expense of registration, and the licensing anthority should be empowered to exempt them. Moreover it might be impossible for them to alter their rules in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. He would suggest that such associations should be exempted by the Act itself or that the licensing authority should have power to exempt them. In Committee he would certainly direct attention to that point. Ho did not wish to make any objection to the Bill as a whole, and he was delighted that it had fallen to the lot of his hon. friend to introduce a Bill to assimilate the law in Ireland to that in Scotland.

MR. FLYNN (Cork County, N.)

said it was a matter for congratulation that they were engaged in discussing a Motion on which they were all generally agreed. It was, however, a pity that the general agreement of the Irish representatives should have been marred by the injudicious speech of the Attorney-General. Certainly it would have been expected that before the Second Reading stage was arrived at the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would have stated their objections. As regarded the general character of the Bill, he thought that the evils of bogus clubs were exaggerated, that the number of such clubs was overstated, and that the evils they occasioned were not of such a gigantic character as had been stated. He agreed that a club which existed mainly or entirely for the consumption of drink should be suppressed; but in doing that care should be taken not to interfere with properly conducted clubs. There were very stringent provisions in the Bill with reference to club officials. A club might be carried on, as far as the officials and the committee could, in a proper manner, but there might be occasions on which undesirable events might occur without their knowledge. The penalties on officials were very severe and he thought that the Bill carried the doctrine of responsibility too far. He joined with the Irish Members generally in giving cordial support to the Bill, reserving the right, however, to move Amendments in Committee in the direction he had indicated.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said that England had in the past suffered a great deal from these bogus clubs; the police had been put to great trouble, and the counties had been put to great expense in order to obtain convictions and to secure the suppression of clubs which were never meant for the purposes of social enjoyment, but for the purpose of obtaining drink in prohibited hours, and thus evading the law. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Cork that they had over-estimated the danger likely to arise from clubs of this kind, and he thought the hon. Membero sn a little further investigation, would come to the conclusion that he himself had formed an erroneous opinion on that subject. He could not see what objection could be made to the proposed rules, and saw no reason why the committee and the club manager should not be responsible, and subject to a fine if the club was not properly conducted, always providing that it was within their knowledge that the club was not properly conducted. He hoped, therefore, that when this Bill got into Committee it would not be greatly interfered with, as drafted, and that the hon. Member who had been successful in introducing the measure would so carry it through the Committee that its efficiency would not in any way De impaired when it became law.

MR. THOMAS SHAW (Hawick Burghs)

said he only intervened because he represented a constituency in the country from whose statute law this Bill was very largely drawn. The responsibility for the shape of this Bill, and almost for its text, rested with the Government, by reason of the fact that the text of this measure was drawn from the Scottish statute, which was a Government measure and a Government measure carried under the best auspices, because it was taken in Committee of the Whole House, which had a large representation of Scottish Members, and the Government finally accepted what was substantially the verdict of the Scottish Members. The backing of this Bill showed that all shades of political opinion in Ireland had united for the purpose of passing this Bill and although he had at first gathered from the comments of the Attorney-General that he was opposing it he was glad to note from the hon. and learned Gentleman's concluding phrases that he had drawn a wrong conclusion from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. All the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman had dealt with were, however, Committee points, though no doubt the Committee would derive great help from the speech he had delivered. As to the way in which the Scottish Bill had worked, he pointed out that in the one year after its passage, they had, in Glasgow, suppressed forty-five bogus clubs, and the disclosures made in the course of the trials of those cases which were contested were deplorable. Drinking clubs were established solely for the sale of liquor, and they were in many cases started by what might be termed disfranchised licensees, who, having lost their legitimate licence to retail liquor, had taken in this matter to shebeening. Convicted betting men also apparently found the carrying on of a club of this kind a most convenient annexe to their ordinary business of book-making. It might, therefore, be fairly assumed that this was an evil which it would be desirable to get rid of, but a knowledge of the extent of that evil in Ireland would only be obtained after this Bill became law. He did not consider the penalties at all too severe. All clubs of this kind which were continued in Ireland after the passage of this Bill would be continued solely for the sordid purpose of selling drink and making money, and the only thing that would stop them being carried on would be a good whacking fine. The curse of these clubs was that they were used by poor creatures insufficiently housed who frequented them for that comfort which they could not find at home. The House had shown by the general assent it had given to the Bill that it was dealing with a much more substantial question than had been suggested by the hon. Member for North Cork. They had, in the first place, a grievance to start with, and that prompted him to say that when they had a grievance, and especially an Irish grievance, the sooner they set about getting rid of it the better. Secondly, they had the experience of a measure actually in effect at the present time. A measure which, it was admitted, had been working splendidly, and, so far as he knew, not one single case of hardship had occurred in its operation. He hoped that they would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill before the House, with a desire to send it to Committee, and to pass it through its remaining stages with as little alteration as possible. The real object of the measure was to get as near as possible to the root and foundation of one of the social curses of life in modern times, and he hoped that the example of Scotland in this matter would be wisely and completely followed by passing this Bill.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL,) Dublin University

said he thought it was a matter for regret that on the introduction of the Bill, or rather, on the Motion for its Second Reading, a Motion which seemed to meet with approval in all quarters, the hon. and learned Member for the city of Waterford should have thought it necessary to indulge in one of his now somewhat continual attacks upon the Irish legal executive. He was aware that his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland had become so accustomed to these attacks that he would be almost lonely without them. They did not appear to have much effect upon him, and he could say of his own knowledge that in regard to many matters of alleged mistakes and inaccuracies—for which the hon. and learned Gentleman and other representatives of Irish constituencies sought to fix the responsibility upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman—they were mistaken, for he was no more responsible than the man in the street. Personally, he was, perhaps, a little more sensitive to these attacks, because of his lack of practice and experience of Parliament. He desired to say that, personally, the proposer of this Bill had given him no opportunity whatever of seeing it. Neither had it been laid before him or his opinion asked upon it from any quarter.

MR. O'NEILL

I submitted the Bill to the Chief Secretary, but the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the room at the time. I have here, however, a letter from the Chief Secretary saying that he agreed to the measure.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said that it did not get rid of the point of his observation, which was a personal one, and was to the effect that he himself had had no opportunity of seeing the Bill, and neither had his opinion been asked upon it. Now what was the head and front of the alleged offending of his right hon. and learned colleague? As he understood it, it was this, that the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated a discussion that might more properly have taken place in Committee with reference to one matter, and one matter only, a matter in which the Bill, which in other respects was a reproduction of the Scotch Act of last year, had departed from the principle of that Act.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

That is not my complaint at all. My complaint is that these negotiations were going on between the opposing parties with reference to this Bill. They arrived at an agreement, and they submitted the agreement and a copy of the Bill before they printed it, and the Government assented to it, either by silence or, as it now appears, by a letter from the Chief Secretary. It is only to-day for the first time that we hear an objection taken to one of the clauses in the Bill. My complaint is that that procedure is calculated to endanger the passage of the measure.

MR. JAMES CAMPBELL

said he did not quite follow the point, nor did he see the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint. The action of the Government that day was exactly the same as it was when the communication was received from the hon. Member who had moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The Government were entirely in favour of the principle of the Bill. They desired to see the measure read a second time, and his right hon. friend's intervention was for the express purpose of facilitating the passage of the Bill. He had simply pointed out to these who were interested in it that they should be prepared for some reform or change in Committee on the lines of restoring in their entirety the principles of the Scotch Act. There might be alternative methods suggested as to the Courts upon which the responsibility was to be thrown for carrying out the legal procedure embodied in the Bill. It was quite possible that the negotiations which had resulted in the harmonious arrangement come to might have in some way been interfered with, or delayed, or interrupted, if any other course had been taken, but it seemed to him that what had occurred was more calculated to facilitate the progress of the measure. The Government supported, as he had said, the principle of the Bill, and they considered that it was a good Bill in every shape and form. It had been moulded to a large extent upon an existing Act of Parliament, brought in with the approval of all sections of Members in the House, and which, during the short time it had been in force, had worked most satisfactorily. In only one respect did the Bill depart from the principle of the Scotch Act, and he thought it would probably have been premature and might have led ultimately to the abandonment of the measure, if the Government had, while the negotiations were going on, suggested matters which might have formed a bone of contention between the parties who were seeking to draft the Bill. Be that as it may, he could only repeat that the object of his right hon. friend was to give hon. Members who were interested in the success of the measure notice that there was one point with which they must De prepared to deal when the Bill went before a Committee.

Two alternatives had been suggested. One was that they should follow the Scotch Act in its entirety, and leave the jurisdiction to the County Court Judge as in Scotland it was left to the sheriff. There was a good deal to be said for that, more particularly if they looked at some of the sections which enabled the Court to impose a fine amounting in some cases to as high a sum as £50. He thought it would certainly be impossible to leave such a jurisdiction to Courts of petty sessions in Ireland unless the party aggrieved was granted a right of appeal to a County Court Judge. If they adopted the principle embodied in the Scotch Act by keeping the County Court Judge as the legal authority to enforce the provisions of the measure, all that would be necessary would be to introduce in Committee a clause of four lines conferring a right of appeal to the County Court Judge on the party aggrieved by any decision of the Court of summary jurisdiction. He thought that the representatives of Irish constituencies might congratulate themselves that there was a substantial agreement in this matter in all quarters of the House. The Bill was one which would undoubtedly affect the social and industrial welfare of their country. It would give facilities for the establishment and promotion of bona fide clubs intended for the social and intellectual culture of their members; and, on the other hand, it would place obstacles in the way of the growth and continuance of clubs, the whole or principal motive of which was the consumption of drink at irregular hours and in irregular ways. He had only risen for the purpose of vindicating his right hon. and learned colleague against the charge of having intervened for no other purpose than to hamper the progress of the Bill. As he had said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was more calculated to facilitate its being placed on the Statute-book of the Realm, because they would approach the Committee stage with a fuller knowledge of what was required in order to ensure the passing of the measure.

MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)

said he did not intend to follow on the points raised by the Solicitor-General for Ireland, who seemed to have entirely misapprehended the objections raised by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, whose complaint was not that the Attorney-General had intervened too early, but that he had not raised the point on an earlier occasion. He hoped it would be possible to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. There was every sign that that would be done, but if such an arrangement were not made it would be necessary for some of those whose names were on the Bill to reconsider their position. It might be interesting to the House to know the opinion of English working men with regard to the portion of the Licensing Act which dealt with the registration of clubs. A natural fear had been expressed lest the provisions of the measure should act to the detriment of bona fide working men's clubs. Upon that point he would quote from the draft report of the Club Union, which represented 1,000 working-men's clubs in England, with a membership of over 400,000— On the whole, the first year of the working of the Act evokes little dissent from the statement of last year's report that the Act is one which causes no injury to well-managed clubs.… Fifty-five clubs have been struck off the register by the decisions of magistrates under the Act whilst a still larger number, especially in London, closed their doors for fear of the Act's operation. Almost without exception, therefore, the object of the legislation has been achieved. Few clubs, if any, have been punished which did not deserve punishment.… In all, twelve union clubs have been penalised. In the face of much contra-tradictory evidence, in three or four cases, it is fair to assume that the magistrates gave their verdict after a careful and judicial consideration of the facts. In the other cases the penalty seems to have been clearly deserved: and such clubs are entitled to no sympathy. Such an expression of opinion on the part of a great body of working men would be a satisfaction to the House, and there was every reason to hope that a similar measure would work without injustice in Ireland, and fulfil the object, for which it had been brought forward.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said the Bill had been promoted for the purpose of removing a great evil with which magistrates found considerable difficulty in dealing. The object was to simplify the whole business and to put clubs in such a position that it should be at once known that they were on the register, what their rules were, and what the consequences of any infringement of these rules would be. He gathered from the remarks of the Solicitor-General that the only matter that the Government proposed to deal with in Committee was the question of appeal. The magistrates appeared to be the proper tribunal to give the certificates and to deal with objections. As to penalties there would probably be little difficulty in securing the assent of the promoters to a right of appeal being granted—possibly to the County Court Judge. Section 10 had been complained of, but he failed to see what more reasonable provision could be put into an Act of Parliament. The offences defined in the section were those for which the officials would Irresponsible, and there could be no hardship inflicted by the penalties being imposed upon the persons responsible rather than on the club members generally. As to the question of the right of members to purchase drink at the club and carry it off the premises for consumption, he was not certain whether the Attorney-General would consider that a suitable matter for treatment in Committee. He hoped he would not. Bogus clubs did not exist to any large extent in the country districts of Ireland, but they did in the cities, and such a provision would lead to an immense amount of mischief. He heartily joined with previous speakers in asking that the Bill should be altered as little as possible in Committee, and that nothing would be done to unduly retard its progress or to prevent its becoming law this session.

MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

thought the bench of magistrates was the proper tribunal before which proceedings in relation the registration of clubs should be initiated, and he agreed that there should be an appeal to the County Court Judge. He wholly disagreed, however, with the statement of the Attorney-General that the clubs ought to have the power to sell drink to be consumed off the premises.

MR. ATKINSON

said he had not suggested that. He had merely called attention to the fact that, although the Bill purported to follow the Scotch Act, it had omitted that provision which was in force in Scotland.

MR. JORDAN

expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He was wholly opposed to clubs, which were for social and intellectual purposes, being turned into public-houses. If the Bill went to a Grand Committee, of which he was a member, he should do his best to secure its passage.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said he wished to make an observation or two with reference to the position in which the House stood. There was no doubt, as was shown in evidence on an inquiry by a Select Committee of which he was a member, that the regulation of clubs was quite as much required in Ireland as in the other parts of the United Kingdom. For England and Scotland the regulation of clubs had been provided for as part of Government measures. For Ireland a Bill had been introduced by private Members, which was in principle supported with practical unanimity, but though it was principally a machinery Bill to adapt the provisions of those Acts to Ireland, it was obvious that there was some difference of opinion on details. They had arrived at a period of the session in which there were great difficulties in the way of private Members passing Bills through their later stages, and he thought that it was almost a matter of justice that the Government, having carried through Acts for the same object as the present Bill for England and Scotland, should give whatever assistance was necessary to pass this Bill into law during the present session.

* MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

in supporting the measure, said he agreed with the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General when they stated that the magistrates had had much difficulty in dealing with the bogus clubs. As one hon. Member had already said, they were often got up by publicans who had lost 'their licences and betting men in Scotland, and they had had the same experience in Ireland. There ought to be some provision to prevent men staying in clubs all night drinking, and that was the kind of clubs they desired to get at. He believed that this Bill was an honest attempt to reduce the drunkenness which unhappily prevailed in Ireland and in the city of Dublin in consequence of these bogus clubs, and there were far too many temptations to this kind of thing. As a working man, he welcomed this attempt to regulate clubs in Ireland. Any clubs in Ireland that were properly conducted had nothing to fear under this Act. They wanted to get at the bogus clubs and he thought this Act would have that beneficial effect. He wished to say a word with reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh in regard to the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors off the premises. In this Bill there was a provision to provide against any such thing, and he appealed to the members of the Grand Committee, if this Bill was sent to that Committee, not to reject this provision. These clubs were intended for social and intellectual recreation. In the club he belonged to they had a cricket club, reading room, and a library, and lectures were given by some of the leading men in Dublin. They did not want clubs to provide drink for the home. It had been said that the necessity for these clubs in Ireland was greater because the housing accommodation of the people was so bad that the men had no other places to go into in order to read their newspapers and have quiet and social conversation with one another. Working men wanted a place where they could go and have a quiet read, and a smoke, and a drink if they wanted it. He agreed, however, that clubs should be compelled to close at a reasonable hour, so as to enable a man to go home and take his necessary rest. He would also support a provision being inserted in regard to these clubs supplying refreshments of a temperance nature. Working men had as much right to the privilege of a club as people in a higher sphere of life. He would only ask that no harassing conditions should be applied to bona fide clubs. If that request were complied with they would have no reason to fear the operation of the Bill.

MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)

expressed the hope that the Attorney-General would reconsider his decision in regard to Clause 8, to which he seemed to be rather averse. That clause specified the penalties for supplying exciseable liquor for consumption outside of a registered club. If the right hon. Gentleman inquired into the matter he would find that a great defect of the Scotch Act was that it had not a clause of that kind. Anybody who knew the big cities of England and Scotland could tell hon. Members that if people carried liquor away from a house and consumed it afterwards they got into a worse condition than they would otherwise do. It was not often that Irish representives on both sides of the House were agreed, but to-day they had the pleasure of finding themselves in accord in regard to this measure, and even the hon. Baronet, the Member for Preston was anxious that the Government should give every possible facility for the passing of the Bill. Some years ago Dublin suffered very much indeed from bogus clubs, but owing to the stringent action which had been taken they had diminished very greatly. He had several objections to the Bill which could be dealt with in Committee. In regard to the penalties, he would be in favour of making them even heavier, believing that any man on whom they should be inflicted would deserve all the punishment he got.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

said he was very pleased to find himself in accord with all that had been said by hon. Members opposite, and on his side, with regard to this Bill. He endorsed every word that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said. It was a most unfortunate thing that an arrangement could not be arrived at between the Government and the promoters of the Bill such as had been arrived at between hon. Members, and that there should be a bone of contention. He did not take anything which was said by hon. Members opposite as an attack upon the Attorney-General. All that had been said he took as a matter of policy to show that the promoters of the Bill were anxious to get the co-operation of the Government. The promoters wished that the Government should point out anything they considered wrong with the Bill so that when it came into the House it might be got through without any serious difficulty. The compromise arrived at between those who were not strictly temperance advocates and those who were temperance advocates was a very agreeable one. Last year he had the honour of introducing a Bill, which passed its Second Reading stage, for the early Saturday closing of public-houses in Ireland. Hon. Members opposite then made a promise that if an effort were made to deal with the question of clubs it would have their entire support, and they had been true to their promise. He agreed that it would be a disastrous thing for members of clubs to be permitted to take drink outside. Permission to do that would not have his support nor should it have the support of those who desired that working men should have the same liberty as men of better social position. The Solicitor-General for Ireland had said that he had not seen the Bill before it was introduced, but the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading produced an acknowledgment of the receipt of the Bill from the Chief Secretary. It was not, therefore, for the Solicitor-General to say that he did not see it. If the Chief Secretary did not perform his duty in submitting it to his colleagues it was his hon. friend's fault, and not that of Irish Members. He thought the Irish Members had a grievance in this matter. It was, however, a matter of great satisfaction that Irish Members on both sides should find themselves in the unique position of agreeing with regard to the expediency of passing this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.