§ EARL GRANVILLE, in moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bill, observed that it had been opposed on very contradictory grounds, and he should reserve himself for any objections that might be urged against it. The Bill was a Supply Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYBefore going into Committee, I wish to make a few preliminary observations; though it seems from what we have just heard that no opposition we can offer is to be of any avail at all; it appears this is to be considered as a Supply Bill; and that we are altogether to be precluded from making any Amendment in it whatsoever. In reading over the Bill, however, it struck me to be quite as much a Police Bill, and for interfering with the domestic arrangements of the people, as a Bill of Supply for Her Majesty. There are a great many police regulations and clauses of importance affecting magistrates, and much that interferes with the management and conduct of the existing refreshment houses. I do not speak of the Bill in any unfriendly spirit. Comparing it with what it was at first, it has been very considerably improved indeed; but, nevertheless, there are two or three things to which I should wish to call attention, although it appears we shall be precluded from altering them. There are three points to which I should have adverted at greater length, had we been allowed to touch this very sacred measure. In the first place, I think you are pressing the principle of your licences much too far in exacting a 10s. 6d. licence from many of the smallest and poorest shopkeepers in the Metropolis. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever walked late at night through some of the bye-streets and deep recesses of London, where you might have seen sheep's-heads and fried fish exposed for sale; the whole contents of the shop, furniture included, would not, in many cases, be worth 10s. 6d.; yet these are refreshment houses for working men, who have there a bit of sheep's-head or cooked fish for 1d. or 2d. The imposition of a tax of 10s. 6d. on such shops will be felt as a grievous burden indeed. With respect to Clause 13, I should be very glad to ascertain to what extent the provisions of this clause are applicable. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware that a very large pro- 166 portion of the houses in this town are held under covenants in their leases not to take any licence whatever for the sale of refreshments, and many houses in which refreshments are already sold are held under covenants not to take licences as a public-house or for the sale of wine. I verily believe when this Act comes into operation some thousands of houses will be found, by the terms of their covenants, unable to avail themselves of its provisions. The leases under several of the largest estates, the Hope estate, the Ward estate, the Portland estate, the Portman estate, and others, have covenants of the nature to which I have referred. Almost every house under these vast estates, with the exception of public-houses themselves, is under a condition not to accept any licence for the sale of wines, &c. The third point to which I would advert is the very extreme power given by the 18th clause to the police. I was anxious to introduce words to the effect that the police should hare the power to visit even during the day such houses as are licensed to sell wine. The clause, as it now stands, makes it lawful for any constable when and so often as he may think proper, to enter all houses licensed as refreshment houses under the authority of this Act, entering every room, from the cellar to the garret. This may be done without any notice. Many of these refreshment-houses, confectioners'-shops, and coffeehouses, are exceedingly respectable, and visited by the most respectable people; yet there is not a confectioner's shop in the whole of London which, under this clause, may not be visited at any hour by any policeman, This is a state of things which I am sure will occasion the very greatest inconvenience, arising from an extension of police power far beyond the necessity of the case. So far as regards the houses selling wine, it may be desirable perhaps that the police should have full powers; but if wine and spirits are not sold, I cannot see what advantage can be gained from giving policemen power to enter all refreshment-houses. I wish to speak very highly of the Metropolitan police. I know well how they execute their duty; but the framers of this Bill do not entertain the same opinion of the Metropolitan police that I do, for the 39th clause contains a provision which I do not believe exists in any Act of Parliament whatever, imposing a heavy penalty on any person selling wine who shall harbour 167 or entertain a policeman during the time he is on duty. A suspicion seems to have existed that many of the police constables, under the influence of vintners or the keepers of public-houses, may be enticed into these houses and made drunk. Such is the estimate of the character of policemen formed by the framers of this Bill. But the circumstance that a police-constable may enter at pleasure into any coffee-shop or confectioner's shop has, I have reason to know, given rise to a great deal of apprehension. I hope some alteration will be made in this respect. I know that this measure has given rise to a great deal of apprehension and alarm as to its effects upon the morals of the people. I am not going to propose any alteration myself, as I understand the Bill is to be regarded as a Supply Bill. I must say, however, that I am not prepared to surrender what I consider to be the just rights and privileges of this House. I will abstain from making any Motion, reserving, so far as I am individually concerned, the right and privilege of the House, and yielding only to the circumstances of the moment, but declaring that I believe the abandonment of our rights and privileges would be a great detriment to the interests of the public.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that he understood the principle of the Bill to be that it was to induce the people of this country to substitute a more wholesome beverage for those fiery spirituous beverages to which they were now accustomed. If so he was at a loss to understand why Ireland and Scotland were not included in the Bill; for if there were any portion of the empire to which this principle was most applicable it was to those two countries, where the manufacture of ardent spirits was principally carried on, and where, consequently, there was comparatively the greatest consumption. If they were to substitute wine for spirituous liquors, surely there was no portion of the empire that stood more in need of the benefits of this Bill. These two portions of the empire were, it seemed, to be deprived of the blessings of Parliamentary Reform, but he could not understand why they were also to be deprived of the benefits of beverage Reform.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he understood that this was to be treated as a Supply Bill, and he was very sorry to hear it, because the greater part of the Bill related to matters with regard to which that 168 House was in the habit of legislating. He agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that this was not a proper time to enter into a discussion of the privileges of the House of Lords, and, therefore, he should be very unwilling to introduce any Amendment; but there were certain clauses in the Bill to which he entertained a strong objection, and he would ask the noble Earl whether any Amendment of them would be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons? The whole of the licensing system under this Bill differed essentially from that under which the licensing victuallers now obtained their licences. The Bill proposed to introduce a number of other persons into the trade. Now he did not ask for the licensed victuallers any monopoly; he did not think the House would support any such monopoly; but at least they had a right to demand that the conditions under which they were placed should be the same as those under which other persons were placed who had the same privileges. Now, a licensed victualler had to apply to a magistrate, who had complete discretion as to whether he would or would not grant him a licence. He had to go to the magistrates to obtain a certificate for a licence, and then he went to the Excise, and upon that certificate the Excise granted the licence. But what was the course to be pursued under this Bill? The person who wished to obtain a licence did not go to the magistrates at all, but went at once to the Excise, and the Excise served a notice on the magistrates, and if the magistrates did not in a certain number of days enter a caveat the licence would be granted as a matter of course; and the magistrates, moreover, could not enter that caveat without stating the specific grounds on which they did so. Now, the licensed victuallers complained that this operated partially in favour of a class who would compete with them in their business. Their Lordships, at the same time that they would refuse to support the licensed victuallers' monopoly, would see the propriety of these wine-sellers being placed on the same footing with the publicans in the matter of licences; and for that purpose he would, if it were competent for him to do so, move to insert words in the 10th clause to the effect that no licence should be granted except on the production of the certificate of magistrates, in the same way as they granted licences to licensed victuallers. He should also move to insert words in the 169 13th clause. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow) asked the reason why Ireland and Scotland were not included in this Bill. He thought he could tell him. He believed that when the Bill was first introduced it was intended to include those two countries, but it met with such opposition from Members representing Ireland and Scotland that if it had not been restricted to England it would not have been carried. He thought the Bill would be a failure, and he was not sorry to see that the experimentum in corpore vili, instead of being on Ireland, would for the first time be tried on England.
§ THE EARL OF HARRINGTONsaid, that this was a mixed question, partly fiscal and partly otherwise. He did not object to the free-trade part of the Bill, but to the new licensing system that it proposed to enact. The sale of spirituous liquors under the existing system was one of the great causes of drunkenness, immorality, irreligion, and many other evils with which society was cursed; and he feared that one effect of this Bill would be to increase those crimes by placing wine more within the reach of the people of this country. He denied that the light wines of France were so innocent a beverage as they had been represented. According to the Bill itself, wines would be admitted into the country containing from 10 to 40 per cent of alcohol. Now, beer contained not more than 8 per cent of alcohol. Yet the operation of the Beer Act had been severely denounced and condemned by the House of Commons and by their Lordships. When that Act was introduced it was supported on grounds similar to those urged by the advocates of this measure. But successive inquiries by Committees of both Houses of Parliament had conclusively proved that intemperance and crime had largely increased in this country. If such had been the case when the liquor sold contained so small a percentage of alcohol, what might they not expect from the operation of this Bill when it came into full operation? In 1854 Mr. Gladstone himself deprecated the idea that any financial considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of any plan for the suppression of intemperance. The very name of the "Maine Liquor Law" was unpopular, and that was not what he desired to introduce; but instead of the present system of licensing he should have preferred what was called "the permissive system," by which the option of granting a licence 170 would be left to the decision of a majority of ratepayers. The public meetings that had been held all over the country, and the numerous petitions that had been presented to Parliament on the subject, showed that the plan was not unpopular. Complaints were now made against the number of beerhouses, and now Parliament was asked to double the number of drinking houses by licensing shops for the sale of stronger alcoholic drinks. He deeply deplored the evils which the people of this country inflicted upon themselves by their consumption of intoxicating drinks, and he deprecated and protested against any legislation which had in any way a tendency to encourage it. According to the Edinburgh Review, £50,000,000 might be annually saved to the people of this country if they were to give up the consumption of intoxicating drinks and tobacco, while Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade, estimated the expenditure much higher; and if his estimate were right it followed that the working classes earning from 20s. to 30s. a week spent one-third or one-half of their wages in those drinking-houses, and left their families with scarcely enough to keep them from starvation. Two thousand medical men denounced this system in the strongest language, amongst whom it appeared that Mr. Gladstone was surprised to find the name of Dr. Ferguson. The Bill, which he considered to be injurious to public morals, could not have been carried without the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone; but what use was genius if it was not exerted for the promotion of public good and the improvement of public morals? No doubt the intention of the Bill was good; but that was a common excuse for anything that was wrong. Mr. Gladstone was a good and a religious man; but it did seem strange that such a man should invite Parliament to double the 42,000 drinking-houses now in existence. He (the Earl of Harrington) would not dwell longer upon the subject; but he had felt it his duty to express the views which he held, in common with a vast number of persons in this country.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI congratulate the noble Earl upon his earnest advocacy of the temperance movement, but I think it would have been better if he had abstained from making these personal observations upon Mr. Gladstone. The question now is, not whether wine is a good or a bad thing, but whether this Bill will, 171 upon the whole, tend to limit or encourage drunkenness. I believe it will have the former effect, and therefore I think it will confer much advantage upon the working classes generally. The noble Earl takes an extreme view, and wishes for a legislative enactment permitting ratepayers to declare that in their districts the minority shall not drink even one glass of beer.
§ THE EARL OF HARRINGTONNo—not in public-houses.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThat is not a power which your Lordships might be inclined to confer; but I admit that in the case of those who have no power over themselves to make a proper use of wine or beer, or even spirits, and who cannot indulge without excess, it is an act of kindness to persuade them, if you can, to abstain altogether. But the object here has been to provide persons who make a moderate use of stimulants with reasonable facilities for obtaining the light wines of the Continent instead of any stronger liquors. It was with that intention that the right hon. Gentleman proposed his Bill, and that was the object which gained for it such general support in the other House. With regard to some of the objections which have been raised, they vanish altogether on a closer examination. The opinions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who spoke so indignantly about certain clauses of the Bill were evidently founded on no research of his own. He declared that the 39th clause of the Bill contained an extraordinary provision with regard to the police—one never heard of in any legislative enactment before. It is clear that he himself has not read the clause at all, because had he done so he would at once have seen from the margin that the clause was taken from the 10 & 11 Vict., chap. 89, sec. 34. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl has good ground to complain of those who gave him information of so unfounded a character. As to the licences, I do not think that in the instances in which it will apply the charge of 10s. 6d. will be any hardship. The noble Earl complained of the extreme injustice of imposing such a licence in the case of houses, for example, where a condition in the lease forbids them to sell intoxicating liquors. I think, however, that when a Bill like this has been so long debated by the other House of Parliament we should certainly have heard complaints made as to the imposition of those licences if any good ground of complaint 172 existed. The third objection taken by the noble Earl referred to the powers given to the police of entering these houses. But here he labours under some mistake. He seemed to consider that every refreshment house would be subjected to these regulations. But the only persons to whom they apply are the keepers of what are called "night houses,"—those houses which are kept open from 9 P. M. to 5 in the morning. Now, I think your Lordships will feel that it is most necessary for the purpose of preserving order and tranquillity that the police should exercise some superintendence over houses of this character. It is quite true that the clause as it is now worded will empower the police to enter these houses in the daytime as well as at night, and it may be a question for the Government to consider whether this power is one which should be retained. As to the right of this House to alter any provisions of the Bill, I am not about to raise the constitutional question again. No doubt, the measure is partly of a fiscal character, and also raises questions of general policy with which your Lordships have always been in the habit of dealing. At the same time they could only deal with the Bill by altering the clauses, and he thought their Lordships would hardly do so in this instance, seeing that upon the alteration of any clauses in a Bill of this kind by your Lordships' House, the House of Commons invariably reject the Bill. No doubt the House of Commons would immediately introduce a new measure; but I submit to your Lordships that it would be hardly worth while to take any steps here which would necessitate such a course except for some very important reasons of general policy. If the objection of the noble Earl is found to be a sound one, it may probably be met in another way. The noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore), wishes to give the magistrates the power of vetoing a licence without stating any reasons for doing so; in short, he would allow them the same powers as they now have in the case of public-houses. Now, one of the great objects of the Bill is to effect the very change to which the noble Earl objects. Under the existing system the magistrates have taken upon themselves to consider what number of houses is necessary in a district, and the result is a monopoly most injurious to the consumer, and not in the slightest degree favourable to the morality of the community. One main ob- 173 ject of the Bill is to avoid creating such monopolies in the case of refreshment houses, and the change desired by the noble Earl, therefore, would, if effected, destroy one of the most beneficial provisions in the Bill. In the other House any alteration of this kind would be as much objected to as it would be by Her Majesty's Government, and therefore I hope the noble Earl will not move any such Amendment. A complaint has been made by a noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) that Scotland and Ireland are excluded from this Bill, and it is urged that it is hard, if the measure be calculated to confer benefit on England, that Scotland and the sister country should not share it. My noble Friend (the Earl of Donoughmore) thereupon, in the most kind manner, volunteered to give an answer, and I might have been very glad to accept the answer if it had only possessed the slight recommendation of being founded in fact. My noble Friend said that Scotland and Ireland had been included in the Bill as first introduced, but that the opposition to it from the Members from those countries was so strong that the Government were obliged to withdraw it; and he added that he was very glad of this, because there would now he plenty of time to see how the experiment worked in England before they were called upon to consider the advisability of extending the measure to the whole of the United Kingdom. In all these points my noble Friend was entirely in error. Ireland and Scotland were not originally introduced in the Bill. In Ireland, I believe, a double feeling existed with regard to the measure, some being in its favour, and others opposed to its provisions; in Scotland, however, the Report of the Forbes Mackenzie Commission is strongly in favour of the provisions of the Bill. As respects the time which the noble Earl expects to have for watching the operation of the measure in England, and observing its advantages or disadvantages, he is mistaken here also, because as soon as this Bill has passed it is the intention of the Government to introduce a similar measure for Scotland and Ireland, with those modifications which the police regulations and other circumstances in those countries will render it necessary to adopt. I hope therefore, that that assurance will be satisfactory to the noble Earl.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThat will depend upon circumstances.
§ House in Committee.
§ THE EARL OF HARRINGTONdrew attention to the 13th clause, defining the new powers of the magistrates. He proposed to strike out from line 28 to line 41, the effect of which would be to give the magistrates the same power with regard to these wine licences that they now possessed with regard to other licences, by the Act of the 9th Geo. IV., cap. 61, see. 1.
§ EARL GRANVILLEremarked that he had already stated the reasons why he could not agree to this Amendment.
LORD DENMANwould not vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl, because if he did so and if it were carried it might lead to a conference or disagreement between the two Houses, but as the noble Lord not then in the House (Lord Brougham) had about two years ago in his place stated that for every 33rd man in the country there was a house of some sort for drink, and that every 33rd house was a house in some way licensed for the sale of liquor, he thought that existing accommodation was more than sufficient. In 1832 complaint had been made of the effect of beerhouse in Hampshire, by the father of the noble Earl Malmesbury, and Lord Brougham, then Chancellor, thought that the magistrates clung to power in retaining their only privilege of granting licences, and stated that beerhouses had done no harm in the North of England. He (Lord Denman) considered that in the county of Derby, in which he had the honour to reside, great evil had been done by them, and for himself he would sooner have half the rent for a private house than double rent for the same house as a place of resort for drinking. He thought that every right-minded man in the country would thank any noble Lord who would move that this Bill be read a third time that day six months.
§ Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.
§ House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.