§ Amendments reported (according to Order).
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to omit from Clause 2 an Amendment having the effect of extending the operation of the Act to the districts of Improvement Commissioners. He objected to the application of the Act to small villages and towns which might be within the boundaries of corporate districts, governed by local boards or commissioners. In his view such towns ought to be omitted, and the provisions of the Bill should be confined to the corporate town itself, leaving the county magistracy the power of applying the measure to the rural villages, though they might happen to lie within the municipal boundaries.
§ Moved to omit the words ("and Districts of Improvement Commissioners").
§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that several large towns such as Huddersfield and Birkenhead, were precedents for the Amendment, for there these powers were entrusted to the governing body and not to the magistrates.
also thought that some limit to the jurisdiction of the town councils should be put, and he complained that the Amendments of the Commons had altered the whole character of the Bill.
§ LORD EBURY
said, they were charged with legislating for the Metropolis only, and not for the rest of England. It was to remove these objections that the Bill had been extended.
§ On Question: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 34, Not-Contents 26: Majority 8.1313
|Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).||Aveland, L.|
|Devonshire, D.||Foley, L. [Teller.]|
|Somerset, D.||Hunsdon, L(V. Falkland),|
|Camden, M.||Methuen, L,|
|Chichester, E.||Mostyn, L.|
|De Grey, E.||Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]|
|Harrowby, E.||Portman, L.|
|Russell, E,||Saye and Sele, L.|
|Saint Germans, E.||Seaton, L.|
|Shaftesbury, E.||Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)|
|Stanley of Alderley, L.|
|Eversley, V.||Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll).|
|Vaux of Harrowden, L.|
|Down, &c, Bp,||Wodehouse, L.|
|Bath, M.||Hawarden, V.|
|Salisbury, M.||Hutchinson, V, (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller.]|
|Amherst, E.||Calthorpe, L,|
|Belmore, E.||Chelmsford, L.|
|De La Warr, E.||Churston, L.|
|Malmesbury, E.||Dunsany, L.|
|Mayo, E.||Egerton, L. [Teller.]|
|Nelson, E.||Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen).|
|Romney, E.||Inchiquin, L.|
|Selkirk, E.||Redesdale, L.|
|Shrewsbury, E.||Silchester, L. (E. Longford).|
|Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty)||Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)|
§ Clause 9 (Adoption of Act by Corporate Boroughs).
§ THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to omit the clause in order to substitute another, giving the power of adopting the Act to the magistrates of corporate boroughs instead of to the town councils.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
pointed out that the control of issuing licences was still loft with the magistrates; but as it was desirable that the inhabitants of a town should have the power of deciding within what hours refreshment houses must be closed, it was better to entrust this power to town councils.
§ LORD EGERTON OF TATTON
said, that this was the first time that the power of choosing, whether the provisions of a Bill affecting the regulations of public houses was to be taken out of the hands of the magistracy and vested in town councils and local commissioners. He reminded 1314 the House that the election of town councillors was very much influenced by publicans and the proceedings that took place at public-houses; therefore he hoped that clause would be rejected.
§ THE EARL OF ROMNEY
thought that it would very much tend to degrade and lower town councils if this clause were affirmed, because nobody could doubt that in an election the leading question which would be put would be whether the candidate would support the introduction of this measure; and he believed that that would lead to the election of a less influential body of townsmen as councillors.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, the reason of introducing the clause was to ascertain the opinion of the town itself, and not of the magistrates of the town; be sides which, if it were not introduced, the whole onus of deciding whether the provisions of the measure should be introduced into certain large towns would be on the stipendiary magistracy, which would be objectionable.
approved in general of magistrates, and not elected bodies, exercising the powers of the Bill; but he was aware that in this he might give umbrage to his excellent friends of the Temperance League, whose Permissive Bill vested a certain authority in the majority of ratepayers. He would make compensation to the League by stating to their Lordships what he knew had a direct tendency in favour of temperance us well to improve the condition of the working classes and insure their comforts. He meant the great cooking depôts, of which he and a noble Friend (the Earl of Shrewsbury) had last week carefully examined the one established in this neighbourhood, in the New Cut, Lambeth—which he strongly recommended their Lordships to visit, and they would receive from it the same gratification which he and his noble friend (the noble Earl) had received. Never was there a more useful establishment, or one better conducted; 1,500, working men a day had their dinner, sometimes alone, sometimes with their wives and daughters. The dinner was excellent. He saw plates of good roast beef, potatoes, and peas, at 5d. per plate, and the soup which he tasted was equal to any he had ate in his life. There were three kinds, and the pea soup was as good as any served on the tables of their Lordships—the price a penny for a good bowl; so that for sixpence, the working man 1315 dined as well as any one could desire. There was perfect cleanliness and order in the kitchen and all parts of the house; and as these establishments, to be useful, must be self-supporting, he had examined their accounts, which were kept with the greatest regularity and precision; and then he called for the accountant's report on the balance; when he found that, after paying every expense, even to the interest of a small sum borrowed, the not profit was 20 per cent on its capital. He earnestly hoped that eighteen or twenty more of such admirable helps to the working classes would be shortly established in this city; and he tendered this statement to his good friends of the League, as a compensation for opposing the extending the power of the Bill to elected bodies, instead of the magistrates. Temperance, as well as comfort, to the working class, was the result of this institution, for generally the workmen attending it were sober men.
§ THE EARL OF HARROWBY
said, as he understood, the simple provision was that these houses should be closed between one and four; and if it were a good provision, he could not understand why it should not be general in its application.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that the whole principle of the Bill was permissive; and the only question in dispute seemed to be, whether this permissive power should be exercised by the town council or by the justices.
§ On Question, That Clause 9 be omitted?—their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not-Contents 31.
§ The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule) Resolved, in the Negative.1316
|Bath, M.||Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller].|
|Airlie, E.||Bateman, L.|
|Amherst, E.||Brougham and Vaux, L.|
|Belmore, E.||Calthorpe, L.|
|De La Warr, E.||Chelmsford, L.|
|Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry).||Churston, L.|
|Egerton, L. [Teller.]|
|Malmesbury, E.||Grinstead, L.(E. Enniskillen).|
|Nelson, E.||Inchiquin, L.|
|Romney, E.||Polwarth, L.|
|Selkirk, E.||Redesdale, L.|
|Shrewsbury, E.||Sherborne, L.|
|Silchestor, L. (E. Longford).|
|Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty).|
|Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway).|
|De Vosci, V.|
|Westbury, L.(L. Chancellor).||Ebury, L.|
|Foley, L. [Teller.]|
|Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland).|
|Somerset, D.||Methuen, L.|
|Camden, M.||Mostyn, L.|
|Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller].|
|De Grey, E.||Portman, L.|
|Granville, E.||Saye and Sele, L.|
|Harrowby, E.||Seaton, L.|
|Russell, E.||Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde).|
|Saint Germans, E.|
|Eversley, V.||Stanley of Alderley, L.|
|Sydney, V.||Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll)|
|Down, &c., Bp.||Vaux of Harrowden, L.|
|Annaly, L.||Wrottesley, L.|
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
thought it was important, in reference to their future proceedings, that they should know whether the Question upon which they had divided had been put in the correct form; in his opinion, it had not been correctly put.
§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, if any impropriety had taken place in putting the Question, it ought to have been mentioned before the division. But if the Question had been put in the way desired, and the numbers had been equal, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could have given a casting vote.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that any objection to the form of a Question must be raised before the division.
§ LORD CHELMSFORD
admitted that it was now too late to object to the form of the Question; but, having regard to their proceedings in future, it was desirable that the irregularity should be noticed. If the Question had been put in the usual form, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," the result would have been just the reverse of what it was.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, that in Committee the proper form of Question was, "That the clause stand part of the Bill;" but upon the be port of the Amendments, the course which he had always followed had been to frame the Question as nearly as possible in the terms of the Motion. In this instance the Motion was "for Clause 9 substitute the following clause," and therefore he had put the Question, "That Clause 9 be struck out."
§ LORD REDESDALE
differed from the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, and believed that the Question ought always 1317 to be, that the clause stand part of the Bill, or that the words stand part of the clause.
said, that he could only state what was the practice in the other House. There the Question would not have been put with reference to a clause at all. The Motion would have been, "that all the words after the word 'that' in Clause 9 to the commencement of Clause 10 be omitted;" and the Question would have been, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." In Committee the Question was put as to clauses; but after the Bill had left the Committee all Motions had reference1 to certain words, and the Question always was, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.