HL Deb 07 June 1872 vol 211 cc1332-48

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that the Bill should be recommitted, in order that their Lordships might be able to discuss the Amendments to be proposed on the Report with greater freedom.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was ready to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess.

Order discharged; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

House in Committee accordingly.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it was now proposed that the Bill should come into operation immediately after it passed, instead of on the 1st September next, as originally intended. To effect that amendment it would be necessary to strike out Clause 3, and to provide a machinery for new licensing bodies.

Clause 3 struck out accordingly.

Clause 4 (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating liquors without license).

Amendment moved, to add at end of clause— And the court may, if it thinks expedient so to do, declare all intoxicating liquor found in the possession of any such person as last aforesaid, and the vessels containing such liquor, to be forfeited."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Also words containing provisions to meet the case of the death or insolvency of the license holder.

Amendments agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he rose for the purpose of moving an addition to the clause, which, he believed, would have the effect of meeting one of the great necessities of the Bill—namely, the want of an adequate provision for the regulation of the retail sale of wine and spirits in bottles over the counter. His Amendment was in strict accordance with the Preamble of the Bill, which stated that the object of the Bill was to amend the law relating to the regulation of public-houses and other places in which intoxicating liquors are sold. The first portion of his Amendment proposed to make it necessary that all these licenses should be granted by the magistrates, and the second that the persons to whom the licenses were granted should be bound to close at the same hour, and should in other respects be subject to the same regulations, as the holders of the ordinary licenses. The noble Earl had incorporated the provisions of Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's Act of 1869 in this, and, consequently, would probably agree with the principle of the Amendment he was about to propose. The advantage of the Amendment would be that if the granting of these licenses were left to the magistrates they would at all events know that they would be issued subject to the wants and necessities of the particular district, for which the applications were made; whereas under the present system it was to the advantage of the Revenue and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Excise from whom they were now obtainable should grant as many as possible, without reference to the wants of the district. One of the greatest means of preventing drunkenness was stringent control over places where intoxicating liquors were sold, and therefore the Amendment would tend to prevent drunkenness and to ensure a better regulation of licenses.

Moved, to insert the following clause:— No person shall sell by retail any intoxicating liquor under the authority of any retail license which such persons shall have obtained as a wholesale spirit dealer or wholesale wine dealer from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, except in premises occupied and used exclusively for the sale therein of intoxicating liquors, unless such person shall have first obtained from the licensing justices a certificate authorizing such sale in premises not exclusively so occupied and used. Every person selling by retail any intoxicating liquor in contravention of this section shall be deemed to have sold the same without being duly licensed. Every person holding a certificate under this section from the licensing justices shall be subject to the same regulations as to hours of closing and police supervision as persons holding a retail license under the section of 32 and 33 Victoria chap. 27."—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

was surprised that the noble Duke could think it possible that he should concur in an Amendment relating to what were called grocers' licenses, and proposed solely in the interests of the liquor monopoly. It was true that he had incorporated Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson's Act in this Bill. That Act provided that certain houses for the sale of liquors to be consumed off the premises, as beerhouses and wine shops, should obtain a license from the magistrates, although they had not previously been compelled to do so. In that respect the present Bill made no alteration, for all houses which had hitherto been required to obtain a magistrate's license would continue under the same obligation. But the noble Duke proposed to bring a new class of houses under the magistrate's licenses, and his Amendment would act against the grocers in the interest of the monopoly of public-house keepers and others. He trusted the House would not accept the proposal. One of the great difficulties they had to encounter in dealing with this subject was the existence of a kind of vested interest in licenses, and the noble Duke's proposal amounted to the creation of an entirely new set of vested interests. The result would be that if they desired to make any further amendment in the law at any future time their difficulties in this direction would be increased, and they would be met with even a stronger cry of privilege and monopoly. If these licenses, as at present granted, had given rise to any gross abuse connected with public morals or public order, he should then be willing to admit that in embarking upon any system of restraining monopoly they were bound to include this particular branch of the trade. He could not admit the right of Parliament to fetter trade, as was proposed by the noble Duke, or to create a new monopoly. He bad himself prepared one or two Amendments which would, he thought, improve the Bill as it stood. One of the hardships of the Bill as it stood was the case, for example, of a public-house which under the Bill, would be obliged to close at 10.0 or 11 p.m., while the grocer's shop next door might sell liquors in bottles to a much later hour. This was an injustice and might lead to abuses, and the remedy he proposed was to bring all houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors under the same law as regards the hours of closing. Another mode in which he proposed to amend the Bill was by subjecting both licensed victuallers and grocers to identical provisions and penalties.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

wished to say a few words in support of the proposal of the noble Duke. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) seemed to have forgotten the interests of the temperance cause. There were certain persons who for a great number of years had been allowed to sell intoxicating liquors in open vessels, and 10 years ago another class of traders was created, who were allowed to sell the same class of articles in closed vessels. These last-named persons were the pets of the Government of the day. It was necessary to stimulate the class into rapid growth in order to give effect to a certain French treaty, which was much admired at the time, but was not quite so popular at the present day. It was now said that the whole of the precautions in order to restrain the publican from misusing his license had been insufficient; that there were too many places where liquor was sold in open vessels, and therefore the temperance agitators successfully urged his noble Friend to bring in a measure which should in some degree correct the evils complained of. But his noble Friend was mistaken in imagining that there were no complaints of the way in which the grocers conducted their business. They might be maligned—as he believed the licensed victuallers were in many cases maligned—but they were charged with selling intoxicating liquors so recklessly as to occasion drunkenness and immorality among the people; and there could be no doubt that it was equally in the power of either class to do so. Therefore, his noble Friend asked that the same measure should be meted out to both classes of traders alike with regard to the number of hours during which they should conduct their business, and the penalties they should incur when they broke the law. He concurred in the principle; but the net result of all this had been the creation of a class of traders who were able not only to compete with the licensed victuallers, but, without any control on the part of the magistrates, to create all those evils which were attributed to the beerhouse in times past. He hoped the House would render the legislation on this question consistent, and would take care that while they were closing the avenues of intoxication in one direction they were not opening them in another.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

was understood to say that, having heard the Amendments which the noble Earl proposed to introduce into his Bill, he was prepared to support the measure of the Government, though in the first instance opposed to it.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

addressed a few words to the House, which were inaudible.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

thought there was a slight fallacy in the argument of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond). There was an important distinction between legislating against private vice and breaches of public order, and the difference ought to be kept in view while legislating on this matter. The law had no right to interfere with a man who chose to commit the sin of drinking in his own house, though it had a right to punish a man who paraded his mischievous drunkenness in the public streets. There was a fallacy also in what the noble Duke said on the question of an equal law. An equal law was that which dealt impartially in like cases, not a law which dealt alike in unlike and unequal cases. The case of the grocer who sold his wares in closed bottles, to be taken away, and within whose house consequently no disorder would arise, was not on a par with that of the licensed victualler or beerhouse keeper, who sold the liquor for consumption within his own house, where disturbances often arose in consequence. It could not, therefore, be said to be an equal law which measured out the same punishment to both. There was a vast difference between drinking on and drinking off the premises, and it was a fallacy to suppose that it was an equal law which dealt equally with both cases.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

wished their Lordships to understand, before dividing upon his proposal, that it was not intended to apply to wine merchants, but only to the other classes of traders in intoxicating liquor. With regard to the remarks of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), he seemed to think that the man who sold the drink was the real culprit, and that it did not matter how much liquor a man bought, or how much he drank, provided he drank it outside the public-house door, or within his own house.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH

reminded the noble Duke that he confined his observations to the distinction between a man getting drunk in a public-house and in his own house.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he desired to make a few observations in reference to the remark of the noble Duke, that he did not intend his proposal to apply to wine merchants. If the noble Duke's Amendment were carried, the more stringent provisions of the Bill would apply to persons who, in addition to intoxicating liquors, sold certain harmless articles, such as tea or tobacco; whereas if he dealt exclusively in liquors he was not subject to such restrictions. It was thought that this grocers' interest might be safely invaded, and therefore we were to have this extraordinary, absurd, and preposterous anomaly. If their Lordships agreed to the Amendment the Bill could not possibly pass into law.

LORD DYNEVOR

made some observations, which were inaudible.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, that after listening to what had been said by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), he was bound to admit that there was a great deal of force in the argument he had adduced, and although he should very much like to place this class of house under the supervision of the magistrates, yet he perceived that if this were done while persons who sold nothing but wine and spirits were exempted from such supervision, an injustice would be committed, and the condition of the law would be anomalous. He did not think he should be justified, therefore, in persevering with the Amendment; but he should propose to take the decision of the House on the question of the license going before the magistrates, unless his noble Friend would agree to the introduction of the words which he proposed to add to the latter part of the clause, with the view of putting these houses under the supervision of the police, both as to hours and adulteration.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, few persons would have the candour and the fairness to admit there was some force in the arguments of an opponent, as the noble Duke had done on the present occasion.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn; clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Occupier of unlicensed premises liable for sale of liquor).

THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that the occupier of an unlicensed house in which intoxicating liquors were sold would be required to show he knew nothing about it, or, in other words, to prove a negative.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it rarely happened that the onus probandi was thrown on the occupier; but he in his turn would make an admission of the validity of his opponent's argument, and would alter the clause by striking out the words "unless he proves that he was not privy or consenting to the sale," and substituting the words—"if it be proved that he was privy or consenting to the sale."

Amendment made.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 22, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 23 (Analysis of Intoxicating Liquors).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

proposed to leave out the words "public-house inspector under this Act," and insert—"superintendent of police or other person authorized in writing by the police authority so to do."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

said, he had pointed out on a former occasion that the inspectors of police were the proper officers to perform the work of inspection under the clause. The Amendment of the noble Earl, however, would carry the power of appointing inspectors beyond the limits of the police. To that he objected.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had no objection to substitute for the words "or other person" the words "or other constable."

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

expressed himself satisfied with the alteration.

Amendment made accordingly.

Clause further amended and agreed to.

Clause 25 (Times of closing).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, Amendments made, the area being made to include "the City of London and the liberties thereof;" and the hour of re-opening being altered from 7 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the morning.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out, page 10, lines 8 and 10, the words ("the hours of 10 o'clock and 6 o'clock on the following morning,") and to insert— ("Such hours, not being earlier than 10 o'clock at night nor later than 6 o'clock on the following morning, as the licensing justices shall appoint.")

His impression was that drinking intoxicating liquors was not in itself a sin, and that people had as much right to drink beer as to eat mutton, so long as they did not overdo it. He did not think it fair that, because the inhabitants of Manchester wished to enforce the closing of public-houses at 10, the population of Hertfordshire should be obliged to adopt that hour also. There was, no doubt, in the North a strong feeling in favour of early closing; but it was, he thought, somewhat hard that because the inhabitants of that part of England found that their morality could not stand having public-houses open till 11, the morality of those who did not find themselves in a similar position in the South should have no regard paid to it. What he desired to effect, therefore, was that the law should be made local in its application on that point, seeing that the demand for closing public-houses at 10 was local. It would cause a great amount of dissatisfaction if they insisted on public-houses being closed on fair and market nights at 10 o'clock. He saw no objection to allowing the authorities in each county to fix the hours of closing within the limits of his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the case of such occasions as fairs or markets was met by the law relating to occasional licenses, so that no inconvenience would be produced by the Bill in that respect. As to the general question of the hours of closing, it was one which was, no doubt, beset with considerable difficulties. He could assure his noble Friend that besides being inundated with communications, it had been his lot to receive numerous deputations, each of which held on the subject the most conflicting opinions, yet each of which urged him to adopt its own particular views as being those entertained by the great majority throughout the country. He had quite as much pressure put upon him to make the Bill more stringent as in the opposite direction; and three of the largest towns in England after London—namely, Liverpool, Leeds, and Manchester—had voted resolutions and sent up deputations to him to beg that the Bill should either be kept as it was, or that its provisions should be rendered stronger. That showed that a strong feeling existed in the country upon that point in favour of restriction. He doubted much indeed whether noble Lords were aware how great the feeling was throughout the country in favour of early closing, and he must confess that he thought 10 was a very reasonable hour in rural districts. It was not the respectable labourer who frequented the public-house after 10 o'clock for the purposes of refreshment. They were generally in bed at that hour. Those who went there after 10 o'clock went there for the purposes of disorder and the concoction of crime. To give power to the parties to fix the hour of closing at their discretion would, he might add, give rise to great anomalies, inasmuch as the hour might vary in every district.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, there would be great difficulty in convincing him that there was anything wrong in drinking beer, or that it was the business of Parliament to take care that the labouring man did not drink too much. Their business was only to take care that public-houses were properly conducted. However, he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29 (Forfeiture of license on repeated convictions).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

desired to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the effect of the clause. The clause proposed not only that the license should be forfeited, but that the person holding it should be disqualified for a term of five years from the date of the third conviction, and the premises might also be disqualified from receiving any license for a term of two years. The result of that legislation as regarded the owner of the premises would be that he would evict the occupier after his first conviction, so as to prevent the premises becoming disqualified. Surely that was rather Draconian legislation? The noble Earl talked of the importance of having some self-acting law that should be independent of the sympathies of magistrates, and he had so altered it that the leniency of the magistrate should not frustrate his object. But the noble Earl might carry this too far. He might make the law so severe as to excite the pity of the magistrates, and there would be no convictions at all. He suggested that the disqualification should not arise unless such premises had at any previous time within 20 years have been occupied by a person whose license had been forfeited during such occupation.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, there was a very general opinion on both sides of the House that provided the principle was not carried too far, it was fair, and just, and expedient in the interests of the public that the owners should be made to a certain extent responsible for the good order of their houses. That being so, the question resolved itself into one of degree. An unanswerable reason why they were justified in making the owners responsible was, that they possessed a monopoly. The House should never forget that the license did not attach to the house—though from custom and general feeling, except something were done actually justifying its forfeiture, its annual renewal was never refused. By that means a special Parliamentary value had been given to the house by the monopoly; and that being so, Parliament and the public had a perfect right to require that the owners, as well as the occupiers, should suffer when the law was violated. The noble Marquess had hinted that there was something Draconian in the legislation proposed; but he (the Earl of Kimberley) would remind him that the present law enated for certain offences, the forfeiture of licenses and disqualification of premises for two, three, and even five years; and he could not think it an unreasonable proposition that after three offences had been committed the house should be liable to be disqualified. The clause, moreover, left it to the discretion of the licensing magistrates. He had introduced a series of securities for the owners, and when he was told that the owner could evict after a first offence, he replied that it was purely a question for the owner's consideration.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

urged that the provision would necessarily render public-house property and trade extremely precarious, while the machinery affecting the owner might have the very opposite effect from that intended by the noble Earl. He could not however press his suggestion.

Clause agreed to.

EARL GREY moved, after Clause 42, to insert a new clause, making it lawful for a town council or other local authority to take the retail trade in intoxicating liquors within the district for which it acts into its own hands; in which case certain rules—which the Amendment set forth at length—should come into force. The noble Earl said, an opinion was entertained by a considerable number of persons that the best mode of dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors would be to establish a system of free trade, subject to a rigid enforcement of strict regulations; and he inferred from the speech of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley), on the second reading of the Bill, that he was favourably disposed towards that view, though he was not prepared at present to act upon it. He quite agreed with his noble Friend in thinking both that there was much to be said in favour of that principle, and also that it would be a hazardous experiment to adopt it at present, as the country was not as yet prepared for it. If, then, we were not to have free trade in intoxicating liquors under strict regulations, we must fall back upon monopoly of some kind or other. Hitherto the privilege of selling liquors had been entrusted to certain selected persons. That was the principle on which the present Bill proceeded. Even his noble Friend admitted that this was not altogether the most satisfactory arrangement that could be devised, and though it might be the most practical mode of dealing with the question, it was undoubtedly liable to great objections. Some of these objections were stated in the other House of Parliament last year by the Secretary for the Home Department, who showed most justly that you could not establish a monopoly of this character in the hands of private individuals without leading to those evils which are usually caused by the creation of monopolies; and it was found in practice that, however strict the regulations established, it was very difficult to enforce them and prevent abuses. One inconvenience was that, as a matter of fact, power was placed in the hands of this selected body exercising a monopoly to levy a tax on the public. Another objection was the constitution of the body by whom the licenses were granted to the selected persons. The power entrusted to the selecting body enabled it to determine who should be the persons to be invested with a lucrative privilege; to grant it to one candidate and to refuse it to another purely at its own discretion. This was necessarily a power of a somewhat invidious character, and might be exercised from personal motives apart from the interests of the public. Since, then, these difficulties existed—in respect of free trade on the one hand, and in respect of the creation of a monopoly on the other—the question remained to be considered whether some plan might not be devised to meet these objections. That object, he believed, might be attained by the clause he proposed, which, while retaining the monopoly of the sale of intoxicating liquors, entrusted that monopoly not to private individuals for their own benefit, but to some public authority. This principle had never been acted upon in this country; but it had been so, apparently with great success, in Sweden. He would call the attention of their Lordships, for a moment, to a system pursued at Gottenburg, of which an interesting account was sometime ago given by Mr. Rathbone, the Member for Liverpool, in a speech to his constituents, which was referred to as well deserving consideration by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in bringing forward his Bill of last year. This experiment has been more fully described in a pamphlet recently published by Mr. Marshall. It appears that in 1865 a certain number of persons in that town formed themselves into an association to buy up the licenses of the public-houses, with the view of placing the control in the hands of the local authorities for the benefit of the public, and not for individuals. The number of licenses was consequently greatly reduced, and the public-houses were in fact kept in the hands of the local authorities. They did not attempt to make a profit by this scheme, but they established a scheme by which spirits were sold on behalf of a company which in fact represented the Corporation of Gothenburg. They appointed managers who were entrusted with the management of refreshment houses for the sale both of liquors and of food and other refreshments. So far as regarded the sale of spirits they were the mere servants of the company, and were allowed no profit on their sale; but they were permitted to sell tea and coffee with other articles of refreshment and food on their own account. The managers, therefore, had no interest, but the reverse, in the sale of spirits. The profits derived from the concern were paid into the corporate funds. The result had been a great decrease in the consumption of intoxicating liquors, a consequent diminution of drunkenness, and a very great improvement in the conduct of the people generally. He knew their Lordships did not like statistics and figures, and he would not therefore trouble them with those that had been furnished to him to show the success of the system, except to mention one fact which he thought very remarkable, as showing the improvement it had caused. In 1865 the cases of delirium tremens reported to have occurred in Gothenburg numbered 118; in 1867 they were only 14. Something like the Gothenburg system he proposed to introduce into this country. The clause which he moved would give a town council, or other local authority, the power of taking the retail trade in liquor for consumption on the premises into its own hands, and, when the local authority had determined to do this, certain regulations, which he had sketched in 12 rules, would come into force. The local authority would be entitled to demand licenses from the Excise; no new licenses would be afterwards granted to other persons; all vested interests would be protected and existing business would have to be purchased, if compulsorily, for a price to be fixed by arbitration. The clause was permissive in this respect—that it did not apply to any place in which the representatives of the ratepayers had not determined to try the experiment; but, beyond this, the clause did not in any way embody the principle of what was called the Permissive Prohibitory Bill, to which he strongly objected as highly unjust and inexpedient. The clause he proposed would not enable the local authority under colour of taking the trade into its own hands to try to stop it. The authorities would be bound to make due provision for meeting the public requirements, but in such a manner as to get rid of the evils of the present system. If their Lordships would examine the clause they would perceive that regulations were introduced to give an appeal to the magistrates, and ultimately to the Secretary of State, if the local authority should neglect to make proper provision for the fair wants of the population in respect of a supply of liquors. It was a great recommendation of the system that it would give the ratepayers and their representatives greater influence than they now possessed; and there was a wide difference between empowering the local authority to stop the trade and investing it with control. Further, the system might be made the means of aiding the local funds, upon which there was an increasing pressure; and municipal administration, by reducing the number of houses, would attain economy, which would increase the surplus to be added to the rates. It was possible the clause might be amended in detail; but he hoped its principle would be accepted. The noble Earl then moved the insertion of the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

hoped his noble Friend (Earl Grey) would not be disappointed at the announcement that the Government could not accept the clause. He was glad, however, his noble Friend had taken the opportunity of explaining a system which, he said, worked well in another country, and which, no doubt, was worthy the consideration of Parliament. But, for his own part, he could not avoid stating that he felt very great doubt whether the local authorities in this country could be safely entrusted with the management of this matter. The whole of the machinery of public-houses was of such a nature, and the influences in connection with the liquor traffic was such, that he was apprehensive of the results—without much more inquiry and consideration than had been given to the subject—if this power were placed in the hands of local authorities. The essential principle of the Gothenburg system was this—that provision was made for the sale of spirits by persons who had no pecuniary interest in the sale, but who made profit by the sale of non-intoxicants and food, so that they had no motive for unduly pressing the sale of spirits. Now, he (the Earl of Kimberley) was free to confess he had considerable doubts whether we had not gone too far in the direction of restriction, and whether it might not be ultimately necessary to somewhat retrace our steps. As long as we had to deal with a system of monopoly, it was essential that the monopoly should be subject to proper regulation; but to break down the monopoly itself it would be requisite to have practically free trade, with severe police regulations, to prevent abuses. He was not at present prepared to introduce this clause into the Bill. That Bill he believed to be sound in principle for the regulation of a monopoly; but the principle of the proposed clause was altogether different, and he did not think it would be possible or politic to introduce two systems at the same time into one Bill.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

proposed a new clause to follow Clause 46:— Where any tenant of any licensed premises is convicted of an offence against this Act, and such offence is one the repetition of which may render the premises liable to be disqualified from receiving a license for any period, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the licensing justices to serve, in manner provided by this Act, notice of such conviction on the owner of the premises. The owner of any licensed premises, for the purposes of this Act, shall mean the person whose name appears in the assessment for the relief of the poor as the owner of such premises: Where any order of a court of summary jurisdiction declaring any licensed premises to be disqualified from receiving a license for any period has been made, the court shall cause such order to be served on the owner of such premises, where the owner is not the occupier, with the addition of a statement that the court will hold a petty sessions at a time and place therein specified, at which the owner may appear and appeal against such order on all or any of the following grounds, but on no other grounds:

  1. (a.) That notice, as required by this Act, has not been served on him of a prior offence which on repetition renders the premises liable to be disqualified from receiving a license at any period, or
  2. (b.) That the tenant by whom the offence was committed held under a contract made prior to the commencement of this Act, and that the owner could not legally have evicted the tenant in the interval between the commission of the offence, in respect of which the disqualifying order was made, and the receipt by him of the notice of the immediately preceding offence which on repetition renders the premises liable to be disqualified from receiving a license at any period, or,
  3. (c.) That the offence in respect of which the disqualifying order was made occurred so soon after the receipt of such last-mentioned notice that the owner, notwithstanding he had legal power to evict the tenant, could not with reasonable diligence have exercised that power in the interval which occurred between the said notice and the second offence.
If the owner appear at the time and place specified, and at such sessions, or any adjournment thereof, satisfy the court that he is entitled to have the order cancelled on any of the grounds aforesaid, the court shall thereupon direct such order to be cancelled, and the same shall be void.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

proposed to amend the proposal of the noble Earl by prescribing some period after notice within which a second offence on the part of the tenant would not involve the owner in any penalty. If some provision of that kind were not inserted the result would be to degrade the trade, because the owners would have to protect themselves by inserting in their agreements a power of immediate eviction.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that under the present law the owners were, without so much protection as this Bill would afford, equally liable to this misfortune. He could not accept the Amendment, which he believed would not remedy any real hardship.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to, and inserted in the Bill.

Clause 47, a new clause. Nothing in this Act shall prevent any person from being liable to be indicted or punished under any other Act, or otherwise, so that he be not punished twice for the same offence.

Clause agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 47, to insert the following clause:— Any justice or justices having jurisdiction where any provision of this Act shall be alleged to be infringed may order any superintendent or constable of police or Excise officer to prosecute the offender, but such justice or justices shall not adjudicate in the case. The costs of these proceedings shall be levied in the usual way, except that in no case shall the prosecutor or his witnesses be liable thereto. They shall be borne where no conviction ensues by the Treasury when the prosecution is by the Excise, and in other cases by the county rate.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND

thought the clause could not possibly be assented to in the face of the decision which their Lordships came to when the Bill was last before them.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

also thought his noble Friend's proposition could not be accepted. Moreover, he would point out to the noble Earl that his proposal could not be conveniently sent down to the House of Commons, as it would, if carried, involve a charge upon the Treasury.

EARL DE LA WARR

said, that under the circumstances, he would not ask the House to divide upon his Motion.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Further Amendments made.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended (No. 131).