COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 13 June 1865)

§ LORD KINNAIRD
said, that though he did not intend to oppose the progress of the Bill, he believed it was calculated to do great injustice to the proprietors of those public-houses which should continue to be closed during the night. He should also say that he did not think it would be wise to alter an Act which had only been passed last year, and the effect of which could not yet have been adequately ascertained. In Scotland the public-houses were closed at eleven o'clock, and the Act enforcing that arrangement had operated most beneficially.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that whatever might be the case in Scotland, it had been found that in this country, and more particularly in the metropolis, the people frequenting our markets, and other persons employed during the night-time, were subjected to great hardship and inconvenience by the Act of last year. The Bill was intended to remedy that evil, and he hoped that their Lordships would not refuse to give to it their sanction.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
thought the original Act had worked very well, and was, therefore, anxious to see it amended in the point where it inflicted a hardship on certain classes. He hoped, however, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of 113 Clanricarde) would consent to the omission of the 5th clause, which gave the power of granting those exceptional licences to magistrates at petty sessions. He trusted that the noble Marquess would consent to the Amendment which he intended to propose.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he was not disposed to look with much favour on the measure. The case of compositors might, he thought, be easily met by their employers, who could make the necessary arrangements for their being supplied with refreshments during the night time. He should further say that he believed substantial refreshments were not desirable for people who remained up until three or four o'clock in the morning. With regard to market people, he should observe that he did not see how any houses could be left open for their use without extending the power to all the other establishments in the neighbourhood. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Kinnaird) that one year did not afford sufficient time for testing the existing Act, and he believed that its continuance for another year would lead to the removal of many of the inconveniences to which it had given rise. Under all the circumstances of the case he was very much disposed to move that the Bill be committed on that day six months.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, he did not agree with the argument of the noble Lord, who wished to inflict upon certain classes restrictions which he would not think of imposing upon their Lordships. After a long debate and a late division their Lordships would think it hard if they were not permitted to have a glass of sherry and a chop. As to the advantages of going to bed upon light refreshments only, he had no faith in such arguments. The Bill was originally passed to close certain houses in the Haymarket, and was not intended in any way to put down drunkenness. The Bill would remove a great hardship to which a large class of persons was at present exposed, and he saw no reason whatever why it should not pass into law, It appeared that an Amendment was to be moved for the omission of the 5th clause, but as no sufficient notice had been given of the Amendment he hoped it would not then be pressed; and they could more conveniently discuss it in some future stage of the Bill. He objected to the manner in which the noble Earl the President of the Council proposed to move the omission 114 of the 5th clause without notice, and thought it would be only right to allow the Bill to pass through Committee now, and to propose the Amendment upon the Report, by which time those interested would become acquainted with the nature of the Amendments.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
understood that his noble Friend the President of the Council had stated to the noble Marquess some time ago the nature of the Amendments he intended to propose. As, however, his noble Friend would not wish it to be supposed that he intended to take the House by surprise, he could not object to allow the Bill to pass through Committee, and to give notice of Amendments for the third reading.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he thought it was a very inconvenient course to propose Amendments on the third reading of a Bill.

§ EARL GREY
said, he entirely agreed in that opinion. They were in such cases unable to see the Bill printed with the Amendments, and they were thus exposed to the risk of falling into serious mistakes.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he thought they were perfectly qualified to consider the proposed Amendment.

§ LORD REDESDALE
said, he would not press his objection to the Bill; but he would suggest that its operation should be limited to a period of two years.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
refused to assent to the Amendment. If it were struck out now, he should move to re-insert it on the Report.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said, that the police had refused to exercise the power of granting the licences which the Act of last year gave them in temporary cases. He therefore could not see why the power should not be left in the hands of the old constituted authorities, the justices of the peace, who are more likely to exercise their powers beneficially to the public. It would be a mockery to give it to the police, who were determined not to exercise it at all.

§ EARL GREY
said, that the House should not pass the Bill hastily through 115 Committee; they should consider the measure carefully, and make any Amendments they thought it required, deliberately. He should certainly object to omit the clause now if they were to have it discussed on the Report.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
thought the police were not fair judges in such a matter, seeing that the opening of these houses of refreshment would give them more work.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, there was a clause in the Public-house Closing Act which already gave the police the power of granting licences for special occasions; but it was held that that power did not extend to the issuing of licences to market houses opened regularly at untimely hours.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, that the reason why the police objected to exercise the power might be that their work would be increased by the opening of public-houses.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, that by the Act of last year the police were authorized to grant licences for the opening of public-houses on particular occasions with the sanction of the Secretary of State; but that power had been held not to extend to granting licences to houses that required to be regularly opened, such as those which were required for the convenience of market people and compositors. This Bill had consequently become necessary.

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON
said, the police were justified in refusing to apply to general cases an Act which was intended to apply to special cases only. If this Bill passed, however, it would remove that objection; and the police seemed to him a safer body to be entrusted with this power than two justices of the peace, as proposed by the 5th clause. He suggested that it would not be discreet to make an alteration in the system established by the Act of last year until it had had further trial. A case, no doubt, had been made out on behalf of compositors and others employed at very late or very early hours, but that was no reason why this power should be taken out of the hands of the police; and he should resist any attempt to reinstate the clause.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
said, that a division had been taken upon this point in the other House, and that the House, contrary to the wishes of the Government, decided that the power should be confided to the justices of the peace. If the clause were now struck out he 116 should move its re-insertion on a future occasion.