§ (1) Where any riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, the sheriff may order every holder of a certificate for the sale of exciseable liquors in or near the 453 place where the riot or tumult happens, or is expected to happen, to close his premises during such time as the order shall require.
§ (2) If any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor during any time at which in pursuance of this Section they are required to be closed, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sheriff" ["sheriff may order every holder of a certificate"], to insert the word "principal."
Perhaps the Lord Advocate can state the position in regard to the sheriff and sheriff's substitute.
§ Mr. URE"The sheriff" includes sheriff's substitute, who may be on the spot. Of course, they can rapidly communicate with one another; at the same time the person on the spot should have power to act.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "sale" ["sale of exciseable liquors"], to insert the words "by retail."
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "Provided that in the case of burghs this power shall be vested solely in the magistrates thereof."
I move this on behalf of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), who is unavoidably absent. I hope it may be agreed to, because in many cases the Principal Sheriff is entirely removed from any popular criticism. As we found in a recent strike, the police were called out by the chief municipal authority without the consent of the local bodies. In a case of tumult arising in a neighbourhood, it seems to me, especially in the larger boroughs, that the bench of magistrates, who are amenable to popular criticism, ought to have the authority and not the sheriff.
§ Mr. UREBy the law of Scotland the sheriff is the officer who is ultimately responsible, and I think it would be very un- 454 desirable that the existing law, which has worked admirably in past generations, should be altered. It might give rise to differences as to the real authority to act in a case of emergency. Therefore, I think the duty should remain with the present officer, who, from the dawn of our legal system in Scotland, has been responsible for the peace.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI hope the Amendment will not be pressed. In Scotland the sheriff always acts in these matters, and as the situation will often be really difficult, it should not be put in the hands of the magistrates, but should remain with the officer who has always been responsible for the duty.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "person" ["If any person keeps open his premises"], and to insert instead thereof the words "holder of aforesaid certificate."
I think the Amendment is necessary, because the word "person" might mean any person who simply opened the door.
§ Mr. UREIf the hon. Gentleman will turn to the second Sub-section he will sea the words are "if any person keeps open his premises for the sale of exciseable liquor," etc. I cannot conceive that this would apply to anybody but the holder of the certificate.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "premises" ["premises for the sale of"], to insert the words "except an hotel keeper for the accommodation of lodgers or travellers."
I submit that the Sub-section as it stands might mean that people who are bonâ fide living in an hotel, who are actually travellers, might be kept out of that hotel.
§ Sir J. D. REESI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
455§ Sir G. YOUNGERI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "closed" ["required to be closed"], to insert the words "and after due intimation thereof has been made to him."
§ Mr. UREI should not think it advisable to insert these words. This Clause follows exactly on the lines of the English Clause. If this Amendment were inserted the question might arise as to what was due intimation, and so forth. These difficulties have never been found to arise, and I do not think they will arise if the Clause is left as it is. The effect would be, I think, to put the onus on the Public Prosecutor of showing that due intimation had been given, whereas it ought to be on the licence holder who kept open contrary to law, and if he can show that he knew nothing about the order, of course he would not be convicted.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Public Prosecutor would be required to prove, so that under those circumstances the onus would rest on him.
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGIs there any reason why the ordinary Parliamentary draftmanship should not be followed, that is to say to use the word "ordered" in the second Sub-section as well as the first instead of "required." In that way the symmetry of the Clause would be preserved.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), leave out the word "required" ["required to be closed"], and insert instead thereof the word "ordered."—[Mr. Norman Craig.]
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move in Subsection (2) to leave out the words "in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words "to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, with the expenses of conviction to be ascertained on conviction; and in addition to such penalty, the certificate granted to such 456 person may be declared to be forfeited and to become null and void."
§ Mr. UREI am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. It does not appear to me to make the punishment fit the crime any better. The House will see there is a very severe penalty for the offence, the gravity of which I do not wish to underrate. At the same time to say that the licence is to be taken away for having committed an offence of this kind would be going a great deal too far.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am glad the right hon. Gentleman has refused to accept this Amendment. I was going to move later on that "fifty" should be replaced by five, as I think "fifty" is a rather Draconian penalty. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will say that that is also the English law.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Further Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add,
§ (2) This Section shall take effect upon the passing of this Act.