§ As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out from the word "where," in page 1, line 5, to the word "a," in line 6, and to insert the words "a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that." The Bill as it stood now provided that where in the opinion of a Court of summary jurisdiction a married man was an habitual drunkard, certain things might ensue. He pro-posed to insert those words so that it would read that when a Court was satisfied by evidence produced before it that a married man was an habitual drunkard, certain things would ensue. Considering the large powers given to a Court if they came to the opinion that a man was an habitual drunkard, he thought the Court, before arriving at that opinion, should hear evidence, and that the man should be allowed to produce evidence to prove that he was not an habitual drunkard. Unless that was done, injustice might arise. It had always been held that a man should be considered innocent until he was proved guilty. If exceptional powers were put into the hands of the Court of summary jurisdiction, the onus of proof should rest exactly in the same manner as it rested in regard to other offences. It might be held, though having consulted one or two legal authorities, he was not quite certain whether it would be so, that the clause already expressed the meaning which he desired to see carried out. He did not, however, think that it did. He had read the Licensing Act of 1892, which dealt 1107 with a similar case, and he found there a form of words inserted to ensure that the Court would have evidence brought before it. Even if the clause did carry out his meaning, he did not think there could be any objection to the alteration he proposed. It would make it quite clear that the clauses did carry out the object he had in view. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill. He did not see any of the Members present whose names were on the back of it
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELNo; they are not.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked whether it was in order to move a Bill in the absence of those Members whose names were on the back of it. He had always understood that under the rules introduced in 1902, the power of moving a Bill was taken away from any Member of the House who was not associated with it. He raised this as a point of order.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe Question has been put. I did not observe that there was no Member in charge of the Bill present. I do not think that anybody did move the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURYPerhaps I had better move the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. SPEAKERI think the better plan would be to ask if anybody does move this Order which stands on the Paper. I ask whether any hon. Member does move it.
§ MR. HAZLETON (Galway, N.)I beg to move.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted—
§ MR. SPEAKERThere not being forty Members present, I now leave the Chair until such time as there may be.
The sitting was resumed at Two o'clock, Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that when the sitting was suspended he was urging that his Amendment should be adopted, in order to ensure that a Court of summary jurisdiction should necessarily have evidence before it before branding a man as an habitual drunkard. He did not wish to cast any discredit upon Courts of summary jurisdiction either in Ireland or any other part of the country, but merely to say, without having it clearly expressed in the Bill, that evidence should be heard and brought before the Court was an erroneous method of procedure which would not commend itself to anyone. His Amendment would provide that evidence must be brought before the Court to show whether or not the particular person charged was an habitual drunkard. The only case which was anything like a parallel was that of the Licensing Act of 1902 which contained a paragraph giving some latitude to the Court, and that proposal was modified by the insertion of some such words as he now proposed to insert in this Bill. His difficulty was that he did not know who was in charge of the Bill, and he did not even know who was going to reply to his proposal. He begged to move.
§ MR. STANIER (Shropshire, Newport)seconded the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 5, to leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'a,' in line 6, and to-insert the words 'a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. REDMOND BARRY,.) Tyrone,Nexpressed the opinion that the Amendment might well be accepted.
§ MR. MOONEY (Newry)protested against the Bill being proceeded with in view of the fact that of the hon. Members who had placed their names on the back of it not one had taken the trouble to attend the sitting. It was not treating the House with respect, and he doubted whether they ought to proceed with the Bill under the circumstances.
§ MR. GODFREY BARING (Isle of Wight)thought the absence of all the hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill so extraordinary a circumstance that he moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ MR. WALKER (Leicestershire, Melton)seconded the Motion.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he failed to see why the debate should be adjourned. The House were fortunate in having the presence of the Solicitor-General for Ireland, and all the hon. Members named on the back of the Bill were Unionists, with whose opinion upon any controversial point the hon. and learned Gentleman was not likely to agree. The questions involved were of a legal character. If the Motion for adjournment were carried it would be impossible to discuss the Bill during this session, and a discussion of its provisions was desirable, although he did not think any hon. Member was opposed to the measure.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)hoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed. Three of the four hon. Members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill were unable to be present. The noble Lord the Member for Londonderry was attending the annual training of a regiment in which he held a commission, the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh was engaged at the moment upon the Grand Committee on the Irish University Bill, the hon. Member for North Down was seriously ill, and the hon. Member for North Fermanagh was professionally engaged in Ireland.
§ MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)thought it would be a great mistake if they did not take advantage of this opportunity to deal with the Bill. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his Motion.
§ MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)thought it would be disastrous to adjourn the debate at this stage. He was sure that the hon. Member's Motion was not directed against the Bill, and he appealed to him to allow it to proceed. The fact that it was 1110 moved by a Member of the Nationalist Party showed that the measure was not controversial.
§ MR. MOONEYsaid that nearly all the Amendments were of a purely legal character, and it was not fair to hon. Members to discuss them without a single hon. Member present representing the party who introduced the Bill. He observed that the Member for the University of Dublin had just entered the House, and that altered the position somewhat and made him rather inclined to proceed with the Bill.
§ MR. GODFREY BARINGasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and negatived.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment designed to protect "anything purchased by her with such earnings or property," thereby omitting the words in the clause "or directed by her to be purchased." He contended that the inclusion of these words in the clause would lead to endless confusion. All that was needed was that a person should say, "I have purchased the article, and I pay for it out of my own money."
§ MR. STANIERseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'her,' to the word 'with' in line 13.'" —(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether the Solicitor-General for Ireland accepted this Amendment. He thought the words were unnecessary, and would only lead to complications. They raised the whole question of the law of agency and would lead to a long legal argument as to authority.
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYthought that the omission of the words would improve the clause
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment providing that the persons who may make an application to the Court are the wife of the habitual drunkard or his or her parent, child, brother, or sister, or the relieving officer of the district in which the alleged habitual drunkard resides. He thought if they exempted from those who could make an application to the Court justices of the peace of the county or borough in which the alleged habitual drunkard resided, the various other persons authorised by the clause, namely, the wife of the habitual drunkard or his or her parent, child, brother, or sister, would be sufficient to put the Bill in operation. Both sides of the family would be represented, and the relieving officer of the district would also have power to apply to the Court. It was right that the relieving officer should be included in order that in cases where the wife had no relations at all, or none who were willing to take action, he should be able to step in and assist her, while at the same time protecting the interests of the ratepayers, because the habitual drunkard would probably be a person who was so spending his money that he might become a burden on the rates. The relieving officer would have an interest in seeing that the Act was carried out, and he supposed that was the object with which he was put in. The magistrate should not be included, because he was there to administer the law, and not to act as a policeman finding out cases which could be brought before the Court; he should be in such a position as to be regarded as absolutely impartial. The relieving officer having been included amongst those who might apply to the Court, no injustice could possibly arise. He could conceive of a justice of the peace initiating a charge which might be brought before himself in his judicial capacity, and, however impartially he might act, his impartiality might be doubted by people who appeared before him on this and other charges.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 1, line 26, to leave out from the third word 'or' to the word 'the' in page 2, line 2."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)said that this was a reasonable Amendment. The relieving officer was not to be empowered to act on his own authority. He was only to act in accordance with the directions of the board of guardians. That being so, the officer might safely be allowed to carry out what might be in many cases a very disagreeable piece of work.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought the Amendment a reasonable and proper one. It was a pity that they should impose on justices of the peace duties which were not magisterial. They should be kept to their own proper functions, and it was no part of their functions to pay inquisitorial visits to houses in the districts where they had jurisdiction.
§ MR. MOONEYopposed the Amendment on the ground that the power given by the Bill would have to be brought into force occasionally at very short notice. The circumstances of cases would require that action should not be delayed. Prompt action would have to be taken, and the fact that the relieving officer could only act on the direction of the board of guardians in making application to the Court would mean that in many cases delays which ought to be avoided would occur.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid it would be perfectly easy to leave out the words "acting by the direction of the board of guardians" at the end of the subsection.
§ MR. MOONEYsaid he was only dealing with the Amendment which the hon. Baronet had moved. There were many cases where for various reasons, although an Order of the Court ought to be obtained by the relatives of the habitual drunkard, they would hesitate 1113 to apply to the Court, and the getting hold of the relieving officer might not be an easy matter, especially if he could only act on the direction of the board of guardians. He believed persons holding the commission of the peace were fit and proper persons to receive the power proposed to be conferred upon them. If the Bill were passed, he believed a majority of the applications would be made by the magistrates, and not by the relieving officers or the relatives.
§ MR. HAZLETON,in opposing the Amendment, asked the House to remember that the Bill had been carefully I considered by the Committee, who, it might be presumed, had good I reason for leaving in the words which the hon. Baronet proposed to omit. The Amendment, in his opinion, would seriously weaken the Bill, and lessen the good effect it was likely to have. The relieving officer was often a very busy man whose time was occupied with other duties. It had been pointed out that the officer could only act by direction of the board of guardians, and that the relatives in such cases would hesitate to apply to the Court. It was necessary, therefore, that the justices of the peace should have power to act in bringing cases before the Court.
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYhoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a division. In any case where a magistrate
§ took the initiative, it would be impossible for him to sit in judgment on the case. On the whole it was very desirable that the words should be retained.
§ MR. SLOANappealed to the hon. Baronet to withdraw the Amendment. There were scores of cases in which the power conferred by the clause would not be exercised by the relatives or the relieving officer, and it was, therefore, desirable that the magistrates should have power to take the initiative.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he regarded the Amendment as important. He pointed out that even if a magistrate did not adjudicate in a case which he had himself initiated, it would come before his brother magistrates, while cases which they had initiated would come before him. He did not think that would affect the impartiality of the magistrates in any way, but people sitting in Court who saw the magistrates acting as prosecutors in some cases and as judges in others would be inclined to say that there might be bias in dealing with the charges. It was in order that that suspicion might be avoided that he moved the Amendment. He was not in any way hostile to the Bill; he was endeavouring to improve it because he wanted it to be a success.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 23. (Division List No. 163.)
1115| AYES | ||
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Elibank, Master of | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Esslemont, George Birnie | Lundon, W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford | Everett, R. Lacey | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Findlay, Alexander | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Gill, A. H. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Killop, W. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Halpin, J. | Maddison, Frederick |
| Brigg, John | Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harrington, Timothy | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cameron, Robert | Hart-Davies, T. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Haworth, Arthur A. | Menzies, Walter |
| Cleland, J. W. | Healy, Timothy Michael | Mooney, J. J. |
| Clough, William | Higham, John Sharp | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Hobart, Sir Robert | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Morrell, Philip |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hooper, A. G. | Murnaghan, George |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Horniman, Emslie John | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Crean, Eugene | Hudson, Walter | 'Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) |
| Crooks William | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r |
| Cullinan, J. | Idris, T. H. W. | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Devlin, Joseph | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. P'ncras, N.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne), | Laidlaw, Robert | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| O'Dowd, John | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Seaverns, J. H. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Seddon, J. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Phillips, John(Longford, S.) | Snowden, P. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Reddy, M. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ridsdale, E. A. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) | Winfrey, R. |
| Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Tomkinson, James | Younger, George |
| Roe, Sir Thomas | Verney, F. W. | |
| Rowlands, J. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay, T. | Sloan and Mr. Hazleton. |
| NOES. | ||
| Anstruther-Gray, Major | Fell, Arthur | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope, | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gretton, John | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Walter Edward | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hill, Sir Clement | |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Kimber, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Stanier. |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to leave out the words "acting by the direction of the board of guardians." He presumed that the board of guardians met not more than once a week, and his Amendment contemplated the avoidance of delay.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'acting by the direction of the board of guardians.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.''
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid it was desirable that the relieving officer should have power to act from time to time, and very often hurriedly. On all occasions the relieving officer would be eventually answerable to his employers. He thought that the omission of these words would be better.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 2, line 5, to leave out from the word 'where' to the word 'a' in line 6, and to insert the words 'a Court of summary jurisdiction is satisfied by evidence produced before it that.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ proposed words there inserted.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 9, after the words 'of any person,' to insert the word 'or.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question, "That the word 'or' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit the words "or thing" from the Clause which imposed penalties on persons who being drunk while "in charge of any person, animal, or thing" endangered the life or limb of any person. He hoped the hon. and learned Member, the Solicitor-General for Ireland, would be able to explain what was the meaning of the word "thing." He defied any Member to get up and say off-hand what was the meaning of "thing." If a motor car or something moved by mechanical traction was meant, by all means the intention ought to be clearly expressed. He had never heard of the word "thing" being used in an Act of Parliament before, and Parliament ought not to adopt such uncertain language in its legislation. He had not looked up the dictionary to see, but he thought that a very large number of different interpretations would be given of what a "thing" was.
§ MR. MOONEYseconded the Amendment. They were all agreed that it was hard to say what was meant by a person being in charge of a "thing." He suggested that the Solicitor-General for Ireland might consider whether he could find a suitable word to carry out the meaning intended by "thing" and insert it at another stage, or that the word should be dropped out altogether. The expression was far too general 1117 and ought to be limited in some way or another.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 10, to leave out the words 'or thing.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or thing' stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYthought that the meaning of the clause was very plain, and it should have the very widest scope possible. He was unable to give a comprehensive definition of the words "or thing," but they were obviously intended to meet every conceivable case where a person got drunk when in charge of timber, animals, motor cars, bicycles, or anything else. The word "thing" itself was to be often found in Acts of Parliament, and he thought it was desirable that these words should remain in the Bill unless a more definite phrase was discovered.
§ MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid that under the clause as it stood it might be made a criminal offence for a person to be
§ drunk in charge of a parcel, a fishing rod, or a walking stick.
§ MR. SLOANthought they might accept the Amendment if they could discover some other words more definite to put in the place of "thing." They should have as wide a word as possible to carry out the intention of the promoters of the Bill; and he would rather have the vague phrase than none at all.
§ MR. HAZLETONhoped that the Solicitor-General for Ireland would not agree to the Amendment. The important question was that a person endangered the life or limb of another person, no matter what he was in charge of. If any more suitable word could be found, let it be brought up in another place, but he hoped the present word would be retained at this stage.
§ Question put, "That the words 'or thing' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 82. (Division List No. 134.)
1119| AYES. | ||
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Hart-Davies, T. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Anstruther-Gray. Major | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Higham, John Sharp | O'Shee, James John |
| Barnes, G. N | Hobart, Sir Robert | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Partington, Oswald |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hodge, John | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Beale, W. P. | Hooper, A. G. | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. | Horniman, Emslie John | Perks, Sir Robert William |
| Brigg, John | Hudson, Walter | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Brunner, J F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Idris, T. H. W. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Cameron, Robert | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rees, J. D. |
| Cheetharm, John Frederick | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Laidlaw, Robert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Clough, William | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lewis, John Herbert | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cooper, G. J. | Lundon, W. | Rowlands, J. |
| Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cox, Harold | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Crean, Eugene | Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Crooks, William | Macpherson, J. T. | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Seddon, J. |
| Devlin, Joseph | M'Callum, John M. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Maddison, Frederick | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Elibank, Master of | Mallet, Charles E. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Marnham, F. J. | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Menzies, Walter | Snowden, P. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Morrell, Philip | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Murnaghan, George | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Gill, A. H. | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Verney, F. W. |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r | |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Halpin, J. | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harrington, Timothy | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| White, Luke (York, E. R.) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | Hazleton and Mr. Sloan. |
| Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Winfrey, R. | |
| Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon | |
| NOES. | ||
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Gretton, John | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Guinness, Walter Edward | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Helmsley, Viscount | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Hill, Sir Clement | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Hunt, Rowland | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lane-Fox, G. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Frederick Banhbury and Mr.Staveley-Hill. |
| Fell, Arthur | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
Bill read the third time, and passed.
§ SIR F. BANBURYmoved to amend Clause 10 by leaving not the words "appears to be thought to be," and inserting the word "is." He had moved a similar Amendment to Clause 1, earlier in the day, and that Amendment was accepted. This Amendment he had taken from the Act of 1902, and he was certain that he would receive the support of hon. Members from Ireland, because by the Amendment he was endeavouring to put Ireland on the same footing as England. Clause 2 of the Act of 1902 was practically identical with this clause, and related to persons being found drunk in charge of a child, and who might be apprehended if the child was under that age. He begged to move.
§ MR. MOONEYexpressed the hope that this Amendment would be accepted by the Committee. He therefore begged to second it.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 3, line 21, to leave out the words 'appears to be thought to be,' and insert the word 'is.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYagreed with the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he wished to move as an addition to Clause 11 words which would prevent the application of the extraordinary provisions in that section to an innocent person. If hon. Members looked at the clause they would find that it created a new and rather novel offence. It made it an offence for any person to aid or abet any man who was already drunk to get drink, or to aid or abet that man in consuming that drink. 1120 Those who were acquainted with the discussions which had taken place on the Licensing Acts would know that there had been endless litigation with regard to whether there was any previous knowledge. This would be, he thought, a very severe law indeed, because it would impose the penalty of imprisonment upon any member of the public who, without knowing the condition of the man, gave drink or supplied it to a man who had already had more than enough. It was not always easy to determine when a man was drunk. Some men could conceal that fact with much greater skill than others. It would be a very great injustice indeed if any man should be deemed guilty of this offence unless he knew or ought to have known the condition of the man. It was for this reason that he desired to insert these words. It was a proper Amendment and should meet the object of the promoters of the Bill. As the clause now stood, if A had supplied B or assisted B to get drink, and B was drunk at the time, although A did not know it, a conviction must follow as a matter of course. He begged to move.
§ MR. MOONEYhoped the Amendment would be accepted. He did not think the promoters of the Bill could refuse it. The clause, as it stood, was of a most penal character. The Court, he thought, should always take evidence on the point of whether the man if he did not know ought to have known. While he was anxious to assist the Bill and help it through, he thought the Amendment should be accepted, and therefore seconded it.
§
Amendment proposed—
At the end of Clause 11, to add the words 'Provided always that no person shall be liable to be convicted under this section unless
1121
the Court is satisfied that he knew or ought to have known the condition of the person in connection with whom the charge is brought.'"—(Mr. James Campbell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln)said he certainly hoped this Amendment would not be accepted. Over and over again Judges had alluded to the word "knowingly," and had described it as a word put into an Act to make a law a dead letter. There was a difference in the Amendment, which proposed that it should be necessary to prove knowledge to exist, or if it did not exist that it ought to have existed. But the difficulty of proving knowledge was always very great, and for that reason he hoped these words would be excluded. If, as a matter of fact, one person supplied drink to another while the other person was drunk it ought to be sufficient when the fact was established in the Courts to secure a conviction. He therefore hoped that the Solicitor-General for Ireland would resist the Amendment.
§ MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)as a friend of the Bill, hoped the Solicitor-General would accept the Amendment. He was not prepared to say what the administration of the licensing law might be in the future, but he asked those who, like himself, desired to see this Bill become law not to put in its way any unnecessary obstacles.
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid he was thoroughly in sympathy with the hon. Member for Lincoln, that there should be no escape for a man who assisted an actually drunken person to obtain drink, but there were occasions, as the right hon. Member for the Dublin University said, when a man who did this could not know that the man was drunk. He thought the words of the Amendment would be an improvement to the clause, and he did not think they would aid any man to escape conviction. He did not think it was the desire of the House of Commons that such a case should come within the scope of the Bill, and he therefore supported the proposed Amendment, because it would prevent a man morally innocent from being penalised by the Court.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)thought it desirable the Amendment 1122 should be accepted. His view was very much confirmed by the fact that the Member for Lincoln was against it. They all had a high respect for the views of the hon. Member, but on this question he generally found it safe to oppose what the hon. Member favoured. According to the Report on the Metropolitan Police, there were various stages of drunkenness, and it was plain that the last degree of drunkenness might be consistent with its being quite invisible to an ordinary spectator. As the clause at present stood, anybody who aided and abetted a man who was not sober to get drink committed a criminal offence, and if a man who was not quite sober went into a public-house, and a friend of his ordered him a glass of beer, and another person induced the publican to supply it, they were guilty of a criminal offence, although they might not know that the man was not quite sober.
§ MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said he most heartily supported this Amendment. There was always a danger of temperance measures being lost by intemperate action on the part of its supporters. If hon. Members from Ireland, whose Bill this was, were satisfied, why should anyone else object? It was enough to make Unionists turn Home Rulers when they found that Irishmen were not allowed to settle these matters for themselves. The late Solicitor-General spoke of a man being drunk without anyone knowing it. There were many people who were drunk from time to time all their lives without anyone else knowing it. He hoped the House would follow the advice given by the Front Benches and accept the Amendment.
§ MR. HAZLETONsaid that, unlike the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, he supported the Amendment in spite of the fact that the Member for Lincoln was against it. He quite admitted that the word "knowingly" was a word to be fought shy of in this Bill, but it was a word that was not going to be in this Bill. The words "ought to have known" provided a safeguard against any possible danger the hon. Gentleman might have in his mind. If the Court knew that the man was drunk it would assume, unless there were some very extraordinary circumstances, that the friend ought to 1123 have known he was drunk. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had intended to move an Amendment on similar lines to this clause, but not having his right hon. friend's knowledge of the law he had again to refer to the Act of 1902, and he was faced with the fact that in that Act Clause 7 was identical with Clause 11 of this Bill. He therefore thought he ought not to move an Amendment which would place Ireland in a superior position to England with regard to the law. His right hon. friend had, however, come forward and moved the Amendment which he would have liked to have seen moved to the Act of 1902, and that being so, although it placed Ireland in a superior position, he should support it.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said he desired to support the hon. Member for Lincoln in this matter. Wherever there was restriction there must be danger of evasion, and the difficulties that arose from evasion. What the House had to consider before they passed a restrictive measure was whether it was worth while to do so, having regard to the dangers which accompanied it. This, in his opinion, was the best course for temperance legislation to take. Although much might be done in different ways, the best way was to penalise the drunkard. He thought the Amendment was extremely widely worded. Not only were some people when in drink much more noticeable than others, but there were some very absent-minded people, and it would be difficult to say whether a person knew or should have known that a man was drunk. The only thing to do was to take evidence as to whether the man was drunk or not, and not to take the opinion of a person as to whether they knew he was drunk or not.
§ MR. GUY BARING (Winchester)said that many persons in the House thought it was a pity that the hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment. On this occasion he regretted that he must differ from his hon. friend. If the hon. Member for Lincoln went to a division he should support him.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he was strongly in favour of the Bill, which was 1124 very badly needed. He remembered that when the present Opposition occupied the benches opposite a somewhat similar Bill found great favour with them, and he asked hon. Members to give way upon this matter. He did not think they proposed or wished that any person should incur liabilities under Clause 11 if in fact he had no knowledge of the condition of the man with reference to-whom he was charged. He was sure no hon. Gentleman would say in such a case that a man ought to be convicted, but he must be if the clause was left as it was, because if all that could be proved was that A was drunk in fact and that B, whether he knew it or not, was supplying or assisting him in getting drunk, and if B knew nothing of the drunken condition of A, it would be wrong that he should incur criminal liability in respect of that act. He wished to prevent that liability attaching in any case in which the Court was satisfied that the man did not in fact know the condition of the person in connection with whom he was charged. He suggested to hon. Members opposite that they were doing more harm than good if they would not give way on a reasonable proposition of that kind, which he himself had moved with the direct object of facilitating the progress of the measure.
§ MR. SLOANhoped hon. Members opposite would withdraw their opposition. The necessity for the Amendment was very great; the Bill had been on the verge of passing once before in that House, and they did not want to see it destroyed now.
§ MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he still thought it would be better not to have these words in, but he would not press his opposition in view of what had been said.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid his Amendment was a matter of technical detail in Clause 13. What he objected to in the clause was that they should compel a wife to give evidence against a husband, and he thought the House would agree with him that that was a good general working rule of jurisprudence. The evils of forcing a woman to give evidence against her husband were well known. If they 1125 succeeded in forcing such evidence they put a husband or a wife in a very awkward position, and either they had to commit perjury, which was the more frequent result, or they were very unwilling to have the truth dragged out of them, and then it was difficult to know how far they were keeping to the facts. Unless there was some special cause why this evil practice should be allowed to exist in the Bill, he felt that the promoters might fairly come to the conclusion that they should omit the words in question. The more often a clause of this kind was included, the more and more would it become a customary clause. He moved his Amendment.
§ MR. MOONEYseconded the Amendment. He thought the old practice of a wife not being allowed to give evidence against her husband, or a husband against his wife, ought to be adhered to. There was no necessity whatever for husband or wife to be made a compellable witness. They had given power to a very large number of people to give evidence before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction; they had the relatives of the person charged, the legal officer, and others, and there was every reason to believe that the necessary evidence would be forthcoming without breaking through the old and sound rule of English law that a wife should not give evidence against her husband or a husband against his wife. He thought the Bill would be quite as strong without these words, if it was simply provided that a husband or a wife should be a competent witness.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 4, line 8, to omit the words 'and save when a defendant a compellable.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. REDMOND BARRYsaid that the intention of Clauses 1 and 2 was mutually to protect husband and wife, and justice would be secured if it would be possible for a husband or a wife to come forward and give evidence if it was his or her own wish to do so, but he thought it was undesirable to force it upon either 1126 the one or the other. He would, therefore, agree to the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not hostile to the Bill, and they had had an extremely useful and businesslike discussion; they had made a large number of Amendments, all of which would lead to the useful working of the Bill when it became an Act, but he would like to draw the attention of his noble friend the Member for Marylebone to the fact that in that House they had made a large number of useful Amendments, and that while the Bill was upstairs in Committee all these Amendments were untouched. It was often said that when a Bill had been considered upstairs it was almost like sacrilege for any hon. Member downstairs to presume to amend it. If they had followed that argument they would not have made all these useful Amendments to this Bill, and what had taken place that afternoon was an object lesson to the Government and to the House as showing that the proper place for all these Committee Amendments was in Committee of the whole House.