Lords Sitting of 11 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland); Church Temporalities (Ireland) Acts Amendment.
3a Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences; Sir John Barnard's Act, &c. Repeal.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.—QUESTION.
LORD PORTMANhaving presented a Petition of Inhabitants of Lyme Regis that steps may be taken for the formation of such a Breakwater as will render the Port of Lyme Regis a safe and efficient Harbour:—
LORD RAVENSWORTHasked the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty whether he was aware of any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to carry out without further delay the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Harbours of Refuge? The recent storm had caused tremendous losses in the merchant service, and especially on the northeast coast, where the existence of harbours of refuge was most to be desired. He believed he was speaking within bounds when he said that during the late awful gale not less than 300 vessels were wrecked, mainly on the north-east coast of this country. The phenomena of storms were now so well understood that he believed intelligent commanders who were provided with good barometers might become sensible of the approach of a gale in time to make for the nearest harbour of refuge, if such an asylum were provided for them.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, it was usual to give notice of questions of this kind. As the noble Lord had not taken this course he had not communicated with his Colleagues, and was not prepared to give the noble Lord an answer.

WESTMINSTER CLOCK.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to put a Question to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack in reference to a matter in which he took a deep interest when

219
he was not in office—he meant the state of the Clock attached to the new Houses of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord had been accustomed to complain of the silence of the clock in former times, and he had no doubt that he had endeavoured to impress his views upon his present colleagues. They all knew the circumstances under which they had been deprived of the doubtful advantage of hearing the tones of the great bell; but when a dock ceased to address itself to the sense of hearing, that was no reason why it should decline to present itself to the sense of sight. One of the hands had disappeared altogether, and the other stood at twelve, so that it had the merit of being right at least once in the twelve hours. He had no doubt the noble and learned Lord had directed the attention of his Colleagues to the subject, and, if so, he should like to hear from him, for the sake of their Lordships and the lawyers in Westminster Hall, that his efforts were likely to be attended with a satisfactory result.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the noble Earl ought to have given notice of his Question. Certainly the clock was not in Chancery, or in these days it would have gone on more satisfactorily. However, he thought the noble Earl could not, with a very good grace, make any complaint on the subject, considering how long a period was taken to repair the clock when he was in office, and the condition in which he had left it to his successors. It could not be denied that the clock was in the worst possible condition. After all, however, the reform of the clock had proceeded as fast as the Reform of Parliament.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Then I gather that there is to be no alteration, at least this Session.
EARL GREY, in common with all the inhabitants of that part of London in which he lived, rejoiced that the great bell had been cracked, and he trusted that no attempt would be made to make the clock speak to their ears again in the old tones. He should like to see the hands in motion again, but he hoped the bell would remain mute.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS THE EARL OF ST. GERMANS moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said
  220
  had for its object to restrict the Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland to ecclesiastical matters and to transfer matrimonial suits to the Court of Probate.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREobserved, that the Bill contained some clauses which he thought were undesirable. The Bill did not prescribe any mode of procedure, which was a very important point.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he was opposed to that part of the Bill which authorized the taking of evidence in the Probate and Divorce Courts by Examiners, as a most unsatisfactory method of taking evidence in any court of law.
  THE BISHOP OF DERRYsaid, the Bill had been approved by the highest authorities in Ireland. He thought the matrimonial jurisdiction could be best administered by the Judge who presided over the Probate Court.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELwas understood to support the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he hoped that, if the Bill were carried, its provisions would be carried out with a greater regard to economy than had hitherto been observed by the Irish Commissioners of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He did not see why they should have £1,000 a year more salary than the Poor Law Commissioners, who did a great deal more work for what they received.
  After a few words from the EARL OF ST. GERMANS,
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD MONTEAGLEstated, that on a future occasion he should ask the Government to lay on the table an account showing the amount of drawback payable on foreign wines at the time of the passing of the Resolutions in the House of Commons, and to inform their Lordships whether any negotiations were now in progress with Spain and Portugal, with a view to the reduction of the duty upon wines imported from those countries; and if so, whether there was any probability that such reduction would be met by a corresponding reduction of the duties upon articles

  221
  of British manufacture exported to Spain and Portugal. He should inquire, at the same time, whether any reliable calculation could be made as to the amount likely to be lost in the consumption of malt, hops, and spirits, by reason of the reduced duty upon French wines.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that, in his opinion, the whole law upon the subject required revision before new vested interests were created. It was not wise, without such a revision, to increase the present large number of beer and refreshment houses, and he believed the result would be most pernicious. He thought that all beer, spirits, wine, and refreshment houses should be put under the control of the magistrates, and that the present number of public-houses ought not to be increased. He had been at a public dinner himself last year, where there were thirteen dozens of one sort of French wine consumed, and only one class of beer. With regard to this Bill carrying out the Commercial Treaty with France, it could only tend to that object, if a promise had been made by an irregular diplomatist to the illustrious individual who condescended to communicate with him. He thought that every shop would be in danger of being a wine-shop, and the blacksmith's and the saddler's in villages be places of resort, where the law as to not selling on the premises might be evaded. Thinking this Bill wholly unnecessary, he should, therefore, move the third reading that day six months; and would call upon Lord Portman,—who, when in the House of Commons, had moved that the Beer Bill be rejected,—to support him on that occasion.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that though he entertained objections to parts of the Bill, and would second the noble Lord's Motion, it was not with the intention of pressing it to a division, but for the purpose of addressing a few remarks to their Lordships. He maintained that the present Bill ought not to have been a Supply Bill. Nearly the whole of the clauses were devoted to the regulation of the houses for the sale of wine, and had nothing whatever to do with Supply. In "another place" the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked to separate the two parts of the Bill, in order that their Lordships might have an opportunity of dealing with the clauses other than the money clauses. He replied that he could not ac-
  222
  cede to the suggestion thus made to him, because the Beer Act was considered and passed as one measure. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that the Beer Act was not a Supply Bill at all, and that, consequently, it was not only discussed, but amended by their Lordships. This Bill, however, was made a Supply Bill, whereby their Lordships were prevented from introducing any Amendments without coming into collision with the House of Commons. It appeared to him that the Bill had been purposely drawn with that intention; and if that were so, he thought their Lordships' privileges had been seriously infringed. The Bill created a new class of refreshment houses, made new police regulations, and did many things that had nothing whatever to do with Supply. The 40th clause of this Bill, for instance, altered the law affecting drunkenness, by imposing a penalty of 40 s., or seven days' imprisonment, though the law as to drunkenness had nothing whatever to do with Supply. Such a clause ought, therefore, not to have been in a Supply Bill at all. He was not disposed to say that he should not agree with the imposition of a 40 s. fine on persons found drunk, the substance of his objection being that such a clause should not have been in a Supply Bill. He was not, however, disposed on this occasion to do anything to bring their Lordships into collision with the other House of Parliament, and therefore all he could do was to say "Not-Content" to the third reading, by way of entering his protest against the course which had been adopted.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, there could be no doubt whatever that this was a Supply Bill; but there could be no doubt whatever that several clauses of the Bill were such as this House might reject or amend, and some, such as the 40th and 41st Clauses, which were unquestionably tacks, on account of which this House, if it stood on its strict rights and privileges, might reject the Bill on the ground that it was not framed in accordance with our Standing Orders. But he, for one, was not prepared to support any such course of proceeding in this case, thinking, as he did, that the regulations were salutary ones; at the same time he thought it right, as the subject had been mentioned in the House, to call the attention of the Government to the point.
  EARL GRANVILLEstated, that the 40th and 41st clauses, which had been ob-

  223
  jected to by some of their Lordships, were introduced into this Bill at the instance not of the Government, but of Mr. Hardy, who was Under Secretary for the Home Department in the Government of the Earl of Derby. The Government did not, he repeated, intend to raise any constitutional objection to their Lordships dealing with any of the questions involved in this Bill; but he did not think that it would be improved by the introduction of any of the Amendments which had been suggested.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 2: Majority 34.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Gloucester and Bristol Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Belper, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Townshend, M.

  Churchill, L.

  Churston, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Chichester, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Digby, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Ducie, E.

  Harris, L.

  Granville, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Romney, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Minster L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Eversley, V.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Lifford, V.

  Portman, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Harrrington, E. [Teller.]

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  PROTESTS.
  Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill.
  "DISSENTIENT:

  "1. Because the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill of 1860 is dishonoured by its Connection with the Eating Houses.

  "2. Because this Bill will tend to convert Eating Houses, which are innocent Places of Recreation and Refreshment, into Resorts of Vice like the Beerhouses.

  "3. Because the Measure is opposed to the Wishes of the Labouring Classes, who are in favour of a prohibitory permissive Bill, enabling the Ratepayers to decide in their Localities for or against the Sale of Strong Liquors in Public Houses.

  "4. Because the Licensed Drinking House System has been denounced by the House of Lords in 1713 as to Gin, and in 1850 as to Beer, and by
  224
  the House of Commons in 1834 as to Spirits, Wine, and Beer.

  "5. Because it is criminal to sanction a Traffic that leads the Labouring Man into Temptation, that poisons his Brain with Alcohol, that injures his Health, beggars his Family, lessens his productive Power, and diminishes the Nation's Wealth.

  "6. Because the drinking Habits of the People are rated by the Judges as the great Source of Crime.

  "7. Because the People of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and chiefly the Working Classes, tax themselves 57 Millions yearly for Beer, Wine, Spirits, and Tobacco; the latter Two contain no Nourishment, and they are all the fertile Source of Disease, Vice, and Crime.

  "8. Because all Experience proves that the greater the Number of Public Houses, where strong Liquors are sold, the greater the Drunkenness and Crimes.

  "9. Because in 1743 the Bishops denounced the Gin Bill with matchless Eloquence, but this social and immoral Wine Bill was not debated by the Bishops, who were absent, or passive at their Posts.

  "HARRINGTON.
  "For 4th and 6th Reasons. DENMAN."
  "DISSENTIENT:

  "1. Because it is inexpedient to pass a Bill which can only be temporary, whilst a new and general Regulation is rendered by it more than ever necessary for all Houses, whether licensed by the Magistrates or the Excise, for the Sale of Wine and Spirits, and Beer, or of Beer only.

  "2. Because the Veto pointed out by this Bill is difficult to be carried out, and has no Reference to the Opinions of a neighbourhood as to the necessity for the Number of Refreshment Houses required therein; whilst it takes away from the Magistrates the Power which they at present (in part) possess of controlling the Sale of Foreign Wines.

  "3. Because the Notice of Application for Licences for Refreshment Houses being placed on Church Doors is a Reference to a Subject entirely different from that of Religion.

  "4. Because while this Bill defines "Refreshment Houses" as Houses open between Nine at Night and Five in the Morning, it requires every Vendor of Eatables who may close his House as early as Eleven at Night to take out a "Refreshment House" Licence, and to be subject to domiciliary Visits from the Police (without any Complaint from any Informer or from the Neighbours), until Five o'clock in the Morning.

  "5. Because the retailing of Wine of all Descriptions, Spanish, Portuguese, French or German, in any Description of Shop, without any limit as to Number, will interfere with ordinary Branches of Trade, and cause great Interruptions in the ordinary Course of Business, and a great Waste of Time, whilst those who have a Character for importing pure Wines will find it very difficult to maintain their Ground against unlimited Competition.

  "DENMAN.
  "DUNGANNON."
  House adjourned at a Quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.