COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 10 May 1872)

HL Deb 10 May 1872 vol 211 cc565-99 565

§ House in Committee (according to Order).

§ Preliminary.

§ Clause 1 (Short title of Act) agreed to.

§ Clause 2 (Extent of Act) agreed to.

§ Clause 3 (Commencement of Act) postponed.

§ Illicit Sales.

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

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, that as the clause must be taken in connection with Clause 29, he thought it might be convenient if he now stated the nature of an Amendment which he meant to propose on the latter clause, but which had reference to all those clauses of the Bill which dealt with penalties and forfeitures. By Clause 29 it would be enacted that on the third conviction for an offence which was to be recorded on the license, the license of the licensed person should be forfeited, and he should be disqualified for a term of five years from holding any license, and the premises in respect of which the license was granted should be disqualified from receiving any license for two years. The penalty, therefore, would operate both on the owner and the tenant of the house, although the owner might not even have known of what was going on, so as to have the opportunity of getting rid of a tenant who was injuring his property. Now, on a former occasion he had drawn their Lordships' attention to the hardship on the owner of a licensed house thus having his property taken from him, without giving him the opportunity of remedying the mischief—for to disqualify the owner from obtaining a license for his premises for two years was virtually to close his house. Now, he wished the owner to have an opportunity of knowing whether or not the tenant conducted the house in a proper manner. Moreover, he thought that to forfeit a license for three convictions, without reference to the particular circumstances or the penalty in each case, was too stringent a measure. What he should propose by his Amendments in Clause 29 566 was this—that whenever the amount of penalties imposed by the convictions under the provisions of the Bill should amount to the sum of £30 within a period of five years, the license should thereupon become ipso facto void; and that whenever the penalties imposed upon any holder of a license should amount to £15 in a period of three years, the holder of the license should be disqualified for a period of three years. This proposition was very similar to one contained in the Bill introduced by the Government last year, and a system of cumulative penalties had been advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. In order to pave the way for the Amendments on Clause 29, he should now move a verbal alteration in the present clause.

§ An Amendment moved, page 2, fine 11, to leave out— ("In addition to any other penalty imposed by this Section, any person convicted of an offence under this Section shall, if he be the owner of the license, forfeit such license.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he concurred with the noble Duke in thinking this was the most convenient time for raising the discussion on the question whether the plan of forfeiting the license on three convictions should be adopted. He knew that objection was taken to the system of accumulating penalties according to the convictions recorded on the license, on the ground that it would be too severe in its operation. He would admit that by the Bill in its present form that punishment was provided in cases where, perhaps, it was not required, and therefore he would himself propose to lessen the number of cases in which that record was enacted. The first case in which a record of the conviction was provided was that of selling any intoxicating liquor without being duly authorized by the license to sell the same, or selling such liquor in any unauthorized place—that was to say, the sale of liquor to be drunk on the premises, when the license was only for the sale of liquor not to be drunk on the premises. The second was the analogous case of evasion of the law as to drinking on the premises by the carrying of any intoxicating liquor from the licensed premises to other premises, there to be consumed, the license being only for selling drink 567 not to be drunk on the premises. The third case in which by the Bill it was proposed that there should be a record of the conviction was that of Clause 9, which provided that the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail should, with certain exceptions, be according to standard measure. Now, although this was undoubtedly an offence which ought to be liable to conviction and punishment, he thought it need not be recorded on the license, as it was not of a sufficiently serious character as to require such a record, and he would propose to amend the Bill accordingly. The next offence for which a record of the conviction was provided was that of the illicit storing of liquor. This was a serious offence, and he thought the punishment should remain as it stood in the Bill. The next offence for which there was to be a record of conviction was that described in Clause 12, which provided for the publication of the names of the licensed persons on the premises in respect of which the license was granted. He did not think so severe a punishment was required in this case, and he proposed to strike it out. In the cases of Clauses 15 and 17, the first of which applied to harbouring prostitutes, and the second to the harbouring of constables, the Bill provided for the record of convictions; that in the former case the conviction should be recorded, but in the latter case such a punishment might be dispensed with, and he proposed to amend the Bill accordingly. With respect to the owner of the premises disqualified, he would propose an Amendment that the disqualification of the owners should be left optional with magistrates; but there would be no option in respect of the occupier who held the license. The plan which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) proposed was, that when the penalties amounted to a certain sum the license should be forfeited. He could not think that this would be so satisfactory as the plan in the Bill. There might be a great number of convictions before the penalties amounted to £50, because in the imposition of penalties the magistrate might have regard to the costs, and make the fines themselves very small. Moreover, there was much difficulty of obtaining convictions, even in cases where there could be no doubt that offences had been committed. It had been alleged that the system proposed 568 by the Bill was a sort of Draconian code; but this was not so, because many of the punishments which it prescribed were in substitution of, and not in addition to, the existing penalties for breaches of the liquor laws.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that some of the admissions made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), coupled with the Amendments which he proposed, had diminished the objections to the plan of punishment provided by the Bill; but still he thought the plan of his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) was much sounder, and much more in accordance with the principles of our jurisprudence. The noble Earl proposed a forfeiture of the license for three offences of particular kinds, without reference to the particular circumstances of each case—without regard to the fact whether the offences were more or less mitigated by the circumstances. According to the Bill, therefore, whenever the magistrate thought it his duty to convict, though the offence itself might be perhaps venial, the offender would lose his license. Now, he thought a gradation of offences was a much preferable plan, because where there was an accumulated amount of penalties it showed that the person was a persistent offender. Under Clause 6, if from premises only licensed to sell liquor to be drunk off the premises a person conveyed away drink and drank it round the next street the publican must give proof that he did not know of this, or the offence would be recorded on his license. Again, under Clause 14, if the publican permitted a person to get drunk on his premises—an accident that might happen to any worthy citizen—he incurred the same severe punishment, and three records of convictions would deprive him of his license.

EARL GREY
regretted that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) intended to favour the owners more than the occupiers by allowing the magistrates an option in the case of the former. He thought that to make the law effective it was necessary that the owners should be dealt with as stringently as the occupiers.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
said, that all independent observers were of opinion that it was essential to restrict the liquor traffic. There were two modes of diminishing the number of public-houses 569 —one by regulating the number according to the population, the other by suppressing those which were conducted in an improper manner. He regretted that in this Bill, which was an honest attempt to remedy a crying evil, the noble Earl did not propose to effect a diminution by the former as well as by the latter plan. He believed the penalties proposed in the Bill were not too severe, and if the House retained them, those who entertained the hope of mitigating the evils which now prevailed would have some prospect of the realization of their wishes; but if the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke were adopted, those who hoped for successful legislation on the subject would cease to take an interest in the present Bill. It was very right that the brewers and publicans should have their advocates when a measure of this kind was under discussion; he should be sorry if it were otherwise; but as these two classes of traders enjoyed from the State the advantages of a monopoly, he thought it was not unreasonable that they should be dealt with more strictly than other classes of the community. The Government who granted the privilege were entitled to exercise a strict supervision; and offences should be uniformly visited by sufficient penalties—penalties not too severe, but sufficient to punish the offence or to prevent the repetition.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, he should support the Amendment of his noble Friend. He objected to so severe a punishment as the forfeiture of the license for a single offence. The clause, in addition to very severe penalties for selling a description of liquor not named in the license, enacted the absolute forfeiture of the license; and it enacted the same punishment for selling intoxicating liquors in a place not authorized by the license. To suppose a case—which was not only possible but extremely probable—the potman of a public-house going round with beer, might sell some on the other side of the street, which would be an offence under this clause; but was it such as should entail upon the publican the forfeiture of his license? With regard to what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate, he was quite aware that if the Amendment of his noble Friend were adopted, there was a large class of persons outside their Lordships' House who would cease to look with any interest on 570 the Bill; but these were persons who would be dissatisfied with any measure which did not curtail the number of public-houses in proportion to the population. The difference between his noble Friend and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was simply one of degree; but it was another question whether the punishments proposed to be inflicted were not too severe. He (Lord Cairns) was as anxious as any Member of the Episcopal Bench to put down drunkenness; but he did not think it would be justifiable to diminish the number of public-houses by increasing the severity of the penalties.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
said, that what he had advocated was to diminish the number of offences by the certainty of punishment.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that the certainty of punishment and the severity of punishment came to much the same thing. Penalties were for one purpose, and for one purpose only—namely, to regulate the conduct and behaviour of those carrying on business in licensed houses; they were not for the purpose of diminishing the number of these houses. If they were to be diminished let it be done fairly and openly; at all events, let the question be argued; but do not let them bring the criminal law into discredit and disgrace by enforcing it for objects which it was never intended to subserve.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
admitted the severity of punishment involved in the forfeiture of the license; but it would be for their Lordships to consider dispassionately whether it were too severe. He would remind their Lordships under the existing law the holder of any license who sold intoxicating liquor other than that for which he was licensed forfeited his license. This was the penalty properly inflicted on him, in addition to that which was inflicted on a person committing the same offence who did not hold any license at all.

§ LORD PORTMAN
said, that in addition to other objections to the clause, he must point out that it contained a further most dangerous provision, giving power to any person without any warrant to apprehend any person found selling or exposing for sale any intoxicating liquors in contravention of the clause, and to detain him until he could hand him over to a constable. He could not be a party to giving such an arbitrary power to 571 anyone. As the Member who had moved to reject the Beer Bill of 1830 in the House of Commons, he was sorry to say that he had lived long enough to see all the evils he had predicted from its operation realized, and none of the predicted benefits realized.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
thought the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of York) had reflected unjustly on the course he was adopting; but he repudiated the notion that he was speaking in the interests of the brewers or the publicans. He spoke in the interests of the whole community, He, in common with, he believed, all their Lordships, was desirous of diminishing the evils arising from immoderate indulgence in spirituous liquors, but he did not think that the system proposed by the Bill was the best calculated to attain that object. The very severity of the penalties proposed was calculated to produce the uncertainty of punishment, which was one of the evils most diligently to be avoided in legislation. In offences of this nature it was obviously necessary to distinguish between the license holder and the owner of the premises. Taking the view he did, and holding that they must review the whole system of deprivation of license, which he proposed to effect by cumulative penalties, as distinct from convictions, he felt it necessary to divide on the Motion to strike out the three lines from the clause.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
said, he had not said that the noble Duke spoke as the advocate of the publicans.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
wished to recall their Lordships' attention to the point on which they were about to divide. The question was, whether a man should forfeit the license he held for the offence of selling liquors he was not licensed to sell.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, that if in this respect the Bill did no more than re-enact the present law he should not think of opposing the clause; but if the Bill proposed a new law for which their Lordships were to be answerable, they ought to be made aware of the fact so that they might address their minds to the consideration of the question whether the penalties were or were not too severe. He wished to put the case of a license-holder selling a pot of beer to a man on the other side of the street opposite to the place for which he was licensed. For 572 such an offence, which might be an abuse of license, the prescribed penalties were too severe; but if this were the law at present, their Lordships would incur no responsibility by re-enacting it. If it were not the law he asked their Lordships to consider the proposal carefully.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, with reference to the question raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), he might say that, under the present Excise laws, if a man sold anything he was not licensed to sell, he was for ever disqualified for holding a spirit license. He did not at all mean to suggest that the Bill did not propose an alteration of the present law; for although something analogous existed in the Excise law, it was not police law, which this Bill proposed to make it. Therefore, it would be misleading their Lordships if he were to say that this Bill merely re-enacted the existing law.

§ On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 90: Majority, 5.

§ Clause agreed to.

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

§ Clause 6 (Seller liable for drinking on premises contrary to license).

§ LORD PORTMAN
said, the clause ran thus— If any purchaser of any intoxicating liquor from a person who is not licensed to sell the same to be drunk on the premises drinks such liquor on the premises where the same is sold or on any highway adjoining or near such premises, the seller of such liquor shall, unless he proves that such drinking was without his privity or consent, be subject to certain penalties, and the conviction was to be recorded on the license. He entirely agreed to the first part of the clause, so far as regarded drinking on the premises; but he could not agree to the second portion as to "drinking on any highway adjoining or near the premises." He could not believe their Lordships would allow these words to stand, for they would have the effect of exposing a publican to those severe penalties if any person who had fetched half-a-pint of beer from the premises was to drink any portion of it on the high road on his way home. Moreover, if the publican wished to evade the law, all he would have to do 573 would be to tell his customers that they must not drink the liquor outside the house, but that they must find some convenient premises next door, or over the hedge, where they might consume it safely. This provision was introduced in the Act of 1870, but it had been found impracticable, and the magistrates in the part of the country where he lived had totally disregarded it. He would move to reject that part of the clause, unless the proof of consent should be thrown on the complainant.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that the words were introduced to meet the difficulty occasioned by publicans who, being only licensed to sell beer to be drunk on the premises, managed to evade the law by placing a bench outside their houses, on which their customers drank liquor. It was extremely difficult to prevent abuses without some hard cases arising, which seemed to show that the proposal was one which could not be maintained. It might be that the words proposed to be omitted went further than the House would sanction; but they did strike at a real abuse, because it was exceedingly easy for a person not having a license to sell beer to be drunk on the premises to evade the restriction imposed by his license by allowing parties to drink the beer on benches at a little distance from the house, or along the highway. He thought that if the words as they stood seemed to be somewhat harsh, the magistrates might be trusted to carry out the enactment with discretion and mildness—unless, indeed, they resembled those justices to whom the noble Lord had referred as having come to the resolution to disregard the law of the land.

§ LORD KESTEVEN
thought the penalties imposed by the clause were much too heavy, and that part of its enactments would be found to work with great hardship.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
proposed to alter the clause so as to require that the drinking on any highway adjoining or near such premises had been "with the privity and consent of the seller." His object was to make it necessary, before a conviction could be obtained, to prove the privity and consent of the landlord, because it was obviously impossible that the seller could prove the negative fact that he did not know of such drinking. He proposed to insert the words—"If it 574 shall appear that such drinking was with his privity or consent."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was ready to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
put the case of the holder of an excise license, and the occupier of a beershop licensed to sell beer not to be drunk on the premises. If the person purchasing beer drank it on the highway adjoining or near the premises, the seller would be liable to the severe penalties imposed by this clause; whereas the purchaser of a bottle of gin at the shop licensed by the Excise across the road might carouse on the highway without the seller incurring any penalty whatever. So stringent a provision was, he thought, contrary to justice.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to leave out the last line of the clause—namely— Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted, in order to clear the ground for the series of cumulative penalties which he had given Notice to propose in Clause 29.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he hoped the Committee would understand that they were now going to divide upon, and to decide upon, the scheme of penalties proposed respectively by the Government and by the noble Duke opposite. It would of course be quite open to any noble Lord to object to any one of the penalties moved by the Government, on the ground of its being either too low or too high; but the present Amendment affected the whole scheme of the Bill in respect of the conditions on which licenses should henceforth be forfeitable.

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH
said, he understood the point to be decided was, whether on the one hand they would adopt a system of self-acting penalties, or, on the other hand, give a certain amount of discretion to the magistrates with regard to imposing the penalties, which, on a certain amount of repetition, would have the same result as the self-acting penalties—the magistrates would consequently have a certain amount of discretion in deciding whether the license should be forfeited or not. Now, in connection with this point there was a fact that should not be lost 575 sight of. In the Beer Act of 1830 the power was given to the magistrates of sending to the Excise Commissioners records of the convictions under that Act, and the Excise Commissioners on receipt of such records were to refuse the renewal of the licenses of the offending parties. But it appeared in evidence before the House of Commons Committee in 1854–24 years afterwards—that in no instance had any record of a conviction been sent to the Excise Commissioners. It did, therefore, seem to him that while no one would dream of questioning the purity of the magistrates in respect to the convictions which they pronounced, yet there might be some question whether they would not allow their good nature to influence them too much as to the amount of the penalties they imposed.

§ On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 84; Not-contents, 81: Majority 3.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

§ On Question? Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 7 (Evasion of law as to drinking on premises contrary to license) amended, and agreed to.

§ Clause 8 (Sale of spirits to children).

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the clause proposed that any license holder who sold any liquor to be consumed on the premises to any person apparently under the age of 16 years should be subject to penalties of 20s. for the first and 40s. for every subsequent offence. He would suggest that the age should be fixed at 12 instead of 16, contending that a boy of the former age was sufficiently old to be responsible for his own action in such cases, and that there were comparatively harmless liquids, such as shrub, bishop, and negus, which came under the definition of spirits, which it would be absurd to prevent a man from selling to a person of that age. He thought their Lordships could say from their own recollection where these penalties would have been unjust to the landlord and inconvenient to youths of 16. The word sixteen must, he thought, have been inserted in the Bill by an oversight.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it was owing to no oversight that the age had been fixed at 16. Such was now the 576 law in the whole of the metropolitan district, and it was simply proposed to extend that law to the whole country. They had the evidence of the police that in the metropolitan district the greatest possible evils had arisen from permitting youths of 16 to indulge in spirits. Boys or lads of that age ought to be placed under judicious and reasonable restraint. He had not the slightest objection that a youth should drink sound English beer; but it was by no means desirable, he thought, that he should drink spirits.

§ On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the words "not being a traveller or lodger" were struck out.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 9 (Sale to be by standard measure).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved an Amendment to the effect that the clause should only be operative when the person applying for the liquor expressly desired, to be served in measures marked according to the Imperial standards.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that at present gross frauds were committed upon the public by the practice of serving them with liquors not in Imperial standard measures. There would be no difficulty whatever in getting glasses of the Imperial standard instead of pewter, if thought desirable.

§ Amendment negatived.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 10 (Internal communication between licensed premises and house of public resort).

THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH
desired to see the clause so worded as to create a complete severance, not only between licensed public-houses and unlicensed premises which were used for public entertainment and resort, but between the license for a public-house and the license for a dancing saloon. The representations he received led him to believe that great evils arose from licenses given to the latter class of house. He would move to insert after ("house") "or with any music hall or dancing room."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the Government had not attempted to deal in this Bill with the general question of music and dancing licenses. He admitted that there were evils in connection with them, but he should be 577 sorry to introduce into the Bill a single Amendment without dealing with the whole subject.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the words of the clause were very large, and imposed penalties on "every person who makes or uses, or allows to be made or used, any internal communication" between licensed premises and houses of public resort. He proposed to leave out the words— In addition to any penalty imposed by this section, any person convicted of an offence under this section shall, if he be the holder of a license, forfeit such license.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, the words "allows to be made" might touch the landlord.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
regarded the offence as a serious one, but promised to consider the points which had been raised, and, if necessary, amend the clause upon the Report.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 11 (Illicit storing of liquor).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the clause inflicted the heavy penalties of £10 and £20 on any license holder who should so much as have on his premises any description of liquor not covered by his license; and directed that the conviction should be recorded on his license. Now, he thought it would be hard if a beershop keeper were prevented from having for his own use any wine or spirits. He therefore proposed to insert the words "unless he shall account for the possession of the same to the satisfaction of the justices."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
accepted the Amendment, regarding it as more effectual than the Amendment with a similar object of which he had himself given Notice.

§ Words added.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
proposed to omit the latter part of the clause— Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was inclined to think the offence which the clause dealt with was a serious one. At the same time, this was a police not an Excise Bill, and believing that the 578 offence might be properly met by Excise penalties, he would not oppose the Amendment.

§ Words struck out accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 12 (Publication of names of licensed persons) agreed to.

§ Offences against Public Order.

§ Clause 13 (Penalty on persons found drunk) agreed to.

§ Clause 14 (Penalty for permitting drunkenness).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
proposed to omit the words— Any conviction for an offence under this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he could not possibly agree to this Amendment. Allowing drunkenness in the house, and supplying liquor to drunken persons, was a great offence, and to punish it severely was absolutely necessary in the interests of good order. He would, however, withdraw the words of the section which imposed a penalty if the publican were himself drunk.

§ Words ("or is himself guilty of drunkenness") struck out accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 15 (Penalty for keeping disorderly house).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he proposed to leave out the words "or reputed thieves." The object with which those words had been introduced was more adequately provided for in the Prevention of Crime Act of last year, which contained stringent provisions against the harbouring of thieves in public-houses. Those provisions had worked extremely well, and, as the harbouring of thieves was more properly a part of the criminal law and was already provided for, he proposed to strike out these words. The question between him and the noble Duke would then be narrowed to the harbouring of prostitutes.

§ Words struck out accordingly.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
proposed to inflict the penalty only where the licensed person was convicted of permitting prostitutes, reputed thieves, or other persons of notoriously bad character to remain on his premises longer 579 than was necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment. He thought it would be inconvenient to deal with reputed thieves in the Act of last year and with prostitutes in this Bill. The object surely was to prevent publicans from harbouring those persons, but not to prevent them from obtaining reasonable refreshment.

§ Amendment moved, to leave out all the words from ("person") down to ("be,") in line 19, and insert— ("is convicted of permitting prostitutes, reputed thieves, or other persons of notoriously bad character to remain on his premises longer than is necessary for the purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, this clause was not so severe as the clause in the existing Act with respect to persons who knowingly harboured thieves. The clause to which he referred was no experiment, for it had been in operation for three years, and the police spoke of it as very valuable. He was ready, however, to accept the words of the noble Duke, if the Committee thought them preferable. But there was great difficulty, under the present law, in preventing prostitutes from assembling in night-houses in London. Attempts had been made again and again without success, and it was on that account that this severe clause was proposed. He was informed that the words proposed would not affect a woman who merely went casually into one of those houses to obtain refreshment.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he was not wedded to his own words, and if the noble Earl was satisfied that the clause as it stood would not prevent persons from entering a house for the purpose of getting refreshment, he would not insist upon his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he had considered the words of the noble Duke in no unfriendly spirit, and he had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to retain the words "habitual resort of or place of meeting."

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 16 (Penalty for permitting premises to be a brothel).

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
objected to the severity of the penalty in 580 the latter part of the clause, according to which, not only was the licensed person to forfeit his license and pay heavy penalties, but, for a single conviction, the premises were to be disqualified from receiving a license for five years. It seemed to be assumed that these premises were always the property of licensed brewers who had, or might have, full knowledge of the way in which the house was conducted. He need not say that this was by no means the case. They were very frequently private persons who had very little means of knowing how the occupier was conducting it. Besides, such a penalty would enable the holder of the license to injure the owner, however innocent. For if the latter wanted to get rid of a bad character, or only threatened to distrain for rent, the license-holder might turn round on him and say—"You intend to ruin me, I will see what I can do to ruin you." He hoped this severe penalty would be struck out.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
said, the owner ought to receive notice before the house should be disqualified. The penalty for a third conviction of a publican would be easily avoided by bringing in a new tenant after the second conviction; but in this case one conviction would be ruinous to the owner, and it would be unjust to punish him if he was ignorant of the offence and had received no warning.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that very considerable difficulty arose with regard to the owner, and as this was the first proposal referring to owners they had come to in the Bill, he wished to point out that the principle of the clause was not entirely new, and that there was already, in more than one instance, a discretionary power for disqualification of this kind. In the case of permitting drunkenness or disorderly conduct there was already the power of disqualifying a house on the third offence; and the Wine Licenses Act of 1860 gave somewhat similar penalties. The objection to the penalty in this clause was, that it was imposed for a first offence, and was not discretionary with the justices. As to the gravity of the offence there could be no difference of opinion; but there arose a question as to whether the infliction of a penalty upon the owner was unjust. There were good reasons for calling upon the owner 581 to prevent a licensed house being used in this way, but there might be other modes of compelling him to do so that might not be open to the same objection as this clause. They might give the owner power, when he found that his house was improperly conducted, to give the tenant immediate notice to quit and to remove him. That, however, would be a forcible interference with contracts, and if such a practice were admitted to a large extent it would lead to difficulties. If, however, the clause was too strong, discretionary power could be given to the justices. He should be quite ready to introduce a system of notices to owners. They might also require owners to be registered, or perhaps it would be preferable to allow them to be registered if they thought fit. With such a register, whenever an offence was committed which was recorded upon the license, the justices could send a notice to the owner that his tenant was conducting his house disreputably so that he might have a reasonable opportunity of preventing it being so used.

§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND
thought that if the owner was wholly ignorant of the abuse of his house no injustice would be involved in his terminating the contract, which ought not to be valid under such circumstances.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
agreed with the noble Earl as to the danger attending an interference with contracts, but remarked that the noble Earl did not feel that difficulty quite so keenly when the Irish Land Bill was under consideration. It seemed to be a more serious matter to punish a man for what he had not done; but if the slightest degree of complicity could be proved against the owner then he ought to be punished. There would be no difficulty about the register, for the name of the owner could be written on the back of the license; and as soon as a conviction took place notice could be sent to the owner, who might have power given him to terminate the tenancy thereupon, or to be exempted from punishment if he forthwith gave such notice as the contract would enable him to give for the purpose of terminating the tenancy.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, nothing could be more unjust than to enact with reference to existing leases where the landlord had no power over the tenant, that the misconduct of that tenant should entail a 582 forfeiture of property upon the landlord. With regard to future leases and contracts, it seemed to him that some system of notices was extremely desirable, because if a third conviction was to forfeit the license owners, for their own protection, would stipulate that two convictions should be, ipso facto, an avoidance of the lease, and it would be necessary that they should have notice of the second offence. Owners would thus be compelled to exercise a species of control over their premises and to secure good tenants; and as soon as a man had proved by his second conviction his unworthiness he would be superseded by a better tenant. But whatever might be done, nothing could be more unjust than to apply the penalty of this clause to the case of existing leases, where the landlord had no power over the tenant.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was willing on the Report to modify the clause, so as to provide that the owner should have notice of the first conviction, and that a second conviction should involve disqualification for a license. On this understanding he would consent to the words being now struck out.

§ Words struck out accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 17 (Penalty for harbouring constables) agreed to.

§ Clause 18 (Penalty for permitting gaming) agreed to, with Amendments.

§ Clause 19 (Power to exclude drunkards from licensed premises).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
objected to the proposal that a constable required to assist in expelling a disorderly person might "use force for that purpose without being responsible for the consequences of such force."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
believed "force" would be construed as "reasonable force," but would consent to use the term "such force as may be required."

§ Clause amended and agreed to.

§ Adulteration.

§ Clause 20 (Adulteration of intoxicating liquors).

§ LORD BUCKHURST
proposed that the punishment should not be confined to the use of "deleterious" ingredients, but should extend to any ingredients. 583 Nothing was more adulterated than beer before it reached the consumer, but he excluded from the charge the higher branches of the trade. He moved to insert the words "or other adulterating."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
was anxious for stringent regulations to prevent adulteration, but was sure their Lordships would not desire to carry the clause too far. The proposed Amendment seemed to him to go too far. The Schedule enumerated cocculus indicus, copperas, opium, Indian hemp, strychnine, tobacco, darnel seed, extract of logwood, salts of zinc or lead, and alum. If anything further were needed it could be supplied by making additions to the list of adulterating ingredients, rather than use a general term, which might raise the question whether the ingredient was adulterating or not.

§ LORD LYTTELTON
said, the question was whether they would treat it as adulteration to put into drink things that were not deemed deleterious, but which were put in simply to provoke thirst, and to induce persons to drink more than they otherwise would.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the question also arose with reference to anything which would weaken the liquor. It seemed to him that the clause was sufficient as it stood, and that any necessary Amendment could be made by correcting the list of ingredients in the Schedule.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley). The proposed Amendment would include water, and it would be unwise to accept it. He thought the words "deleterious ingredients," coupled with the list in the Schedule, would meet the case; and therefore he would advise the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.

§ LORD HYLTON
said, that much adulteration was produced by mixtures supplied to publicans by brewers. He thought that everyone who adulterated should be deprived of his license.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY
said, it would be very hard that a man should forfeit his license for selling liquor that was adulterated without his knowing it.

§ Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

584

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, he objected very strongly to the last paragraph of the clause, which required that a person convicted of any offence under this section should affix to any part of his premises prescribed by a public-house Inspector a placard stating his conviction, and should not remove it for two weeks. The offence of adulteration was no doubt a grave one; the penalty attached to it by the clause was very severe, and he was glad it should be so; but, if his Amendment to a later part of the Bill were carried, it would be necessary to qualify this clause. He objected to this additional penalty of compelling a man to placard his own guilt on his own house. It was a novel mode of punishing a man, though he understood it had been tried in New Zealand. He objected to it, and if he were encouraged, he should take the sense of the House upon it. The paragraph further directed that if any one were to pull down or deface the placard, the man should put it up again, and so, for the stipulated time, he would become a continual bill-sticker.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he hoped this clause would not be regarded merely as compelling a man to become a bill-sticker. He thought no more appropriate punishment could be inflicted than that of compelling a man to make it known to everybody that he had been convicted, and so to inflict the punishment upon himself. As to the penalty being novel in form, it did not follow that it was necessarily bad. At all events, he hoped that noble Lords on his own side of the House would not condemn the proposal because it was new; and if it was new, he believed it would prove to be a useful innovation, and that it would have a good effect on the keepers of public-houses. The very circumstance of a house being so placarded would attract a good deal of attention, and no doubt it would produce a good effect. They had passed laws to prevent adulteration, yet it was notorious almost everything they ate or drank was adulterated. He did not want to go too fast, and this was a small step in the right direction. The clause provided that the man who mixed with his liquors materials positively deleterious should be punished, not with the pillory as in the time of our ancestors—for in these days that would be deemed cruel and 585 barbarous—but with something very like it, by making him display to the whole world the fact of his conviction in front of his house.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
thought the provision was, on the whole, a wise one, and that it followed a sound principle in legislation. What was said to the publican was—"You shall not deceive your customer; if you do you shall be punished for it." The penalty proposed would be most effective, without being very cruel. He was bound to say that the objection of the publicans was that they were singled out from other tradesmen for this form of punishment; and if the objection were allowed to endure it would be a sound one:—but he trusted that it would not endure, and that the grocer who sanded his sugar would be punished in a similar manner by subsequent legislation.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE
thought the clause, as it now stood, had in it something ludicrous. It proposed to say to the guilty publican—"You shall not only have capital punishment, but you shall commit suicide." Surely it was enough to enact that the placard should be affixed to the man's house without compelling him to affix it with his own hands. How were they to compel the publican to do so?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the publican would be fined 40s. for every day that the notice was not exhibited or was defaced.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Clause 21 (Possession of adulterated liquor or deleterious ingredients), and Clause 22 (Schedule of deleterious ingredients) agreed to.

§ Clause 23 (Analysis of intoxicating liquor).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved to insert— Any person required in pursuance of the foregoing provisions to furnish samples of any intoxicating liquor for the purpose of analysis may at the time of supplying such samples require the same to be sealed in his presence with his own seal, and a corresponding sample sealed by such superintendent, inspector, or officer, shall, if required, be left with the person for reference, in case of dispute as to the correctness of the analysis or otherwise. No sample so sealed shall be opened except by a public analyst, and such analyst shall give a reasonable notice to the person by whom such sample was furnished, in order to enable such person, if he shall think fit to attend at the time when such sample is opened. 586 He should presently propose that the person whose liquor was to be analyzed should be present if he should think fit when the analysis was made. When the Legislature was enacting very stringent penalties, it was but right that the party accused should be satisfied that the analysis was perfectly fair.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
felt that the noble Duke had the same object with himself. He would consider if any further words were necessary to be inserted in the clause, and if they did not entirely carry out his view, the noble Duke might object to the whole clause. He would confer with the noble Duke how the provision could best be made. He should object to the appointment of a public analyst.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL
said, it would be useless for the publican to be present when the analysis was made, as he would know nothing of the process carried on.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, it would be much less expensive to have a public analyst than to follow the clause as it stood; and the analysis of such an officer would command more confidence than an analysis performed by any gentleman appointed by the Excise. The public analyst need not be a salaried officer—he could be paid some small fee when his services were required. This year a public analyst had been appointed in Worcestershire at an annual salary, with great satisfaction to the ratepayers.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that the plan proposed by the Bill already existed, and worked well. There were nine Acts of Parliament against adulteration, and they were enforced by the Excise, and were not ineffective; for in the 10 years from 1857 to 1867 there had been 106 convictions.

§ Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Closing Licensed Premises in case of Riot.

§ Clause 24 (Power of justices to close licensed Premises in case of Riot) agreed to.

§ Closing of Licensed Premises on Sundays and Holidays.

§ Clause 25 (Times of Closing).

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
hoped that the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill would not give too 587 Puritanical a character to the measure. The clause would not allow licensed houses to open till 7 o'clock in the morning. He supposed the object in view was to strengthen the hands of the police, and to prevent disorder and breaches of the law. But was there any danger of such things happening before 6 in the morning? If the object was to prevent the working man from taking his breakfast in a public-house and having beer with it instead of tea or coffee—there could be no doubt that beer was much less wholesome for him; but in the same sense pork was much less wholesome than mutton—yet Parliament would never legislate to force working men to eat mutton and not pork. Such a point as this, then, was entirely outside the purview of legislation, and to adopt it would be to apply an utterly false principle. There was also another point which he thought might be altered for the better. It was proposed to close public-houses at 12 at night—he thought that the time should be extended to 1 o'clock. There were many places of entertainment which did not close till 12, and it would be extremely hard upon those people who had been trying to obtain a little innocent amusement if they were to be prevented from going into a public-house after that hour. He thought the hours for week days should be altered so that these houses should be allowed to open at 5 A.M. and close at 1 A.M.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it was difficult to fix upon what were the best times for opening and closing. No doubt the clause did propose a great increase of stringency over the present law, and he (the Earl of Kimberley) would at once admit that one object of the Bill, without being Puritanical, was to limit the extent of drinking by indirect checks. He was not disposed to advise the House to adopt the extreme views of those who would give power to the majority of a locality to prevent the minority using intoxicating liquors. At the same time there were considerable bodies of people, and among them a great number of the working classes, who entertained strong opinions on this subject; and it was necessary to take those opinions somewhat into account in dealing with the matter. There was a great difference of feeling in different parts of the country, and there might 588 be cases of hardship and inconvenience if there were no loop-hole in the Bill, and that loop-hole was provided by the 27th clause, which empowered the magistrates to make exceptions in particular cases, in which it might be desirable to provide accommodation for persons attending markets or engaged in certain trades. In Scotland the magistrates had generally in their discretion fixed the hour of opening at 7 o'clock in the morning, and the arrangement had been found to work well. He trusted the Committee would not agree to make 5 the general hour for opening. The Bill proposed a uniform system for public-houses, beerhouses, and winehouses, which were at present under different regulations, and though it would be more severe as regarded public-houses, it would make less alteration in the other classes. It would be as well that he should point out exactly what were the present hours of closing. Within the limits of the Public-houses Closing Act of 1864—that was to say, within the City of London, the metropolitan police district, and such corporate boroughs or districts as had adopted the Act—the hours were from 1 A.M. to 4 A.M. Beerhouses were under the statute of 1860, and were closed from 12 P.M. to 5 A.M. in London and the metropolitan district, and in other districts they closed at hours varying according to the population. The present Bill proposed to introduce a general law for closing—namely, 12 o'clock at night, for London within the four miles radius, which was one hour earlier than public-houses were compelled to close at present; 11 o'clock for the metropolitan police district, and towns with 10,000 inhabitants, and 10 o'clock elsewhere. It was during the hour between 12 to 1 o'clock that the greatest amount of drunkenness took place; and if their Lordships wished to introduce order into our towns, they could not take a more effective measure than to close the houses earlier. He hoped their Lordships would take up the hours of opening and closing separately, as they were separate questions.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
preferred 6 A.M. to 7 for London; while in the country the case would be met by the clause giving power to the magistrates to relax the rule if they thought it necessary. He presumed that the clause proposed 589 no alteration in the existing law as to Sunday.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the alteration as regarded Sunday was this—The present hour of opening on Sunday afternoon was 12 30: the Bill proposed that it should he 1 o'clock, that was, half-an-hour later. The next hours for closing at present on Sunday were from 3 P.M. to 5 P.M., and the Bill proposed that the hours of closing should be from 3 P.M. to 6 P.M. Then, with regard to the closing on Sunday night, the hour of closing in London was left the same—namely, 11 o'clock, and the hour of closing in other parts of the country was made 10 P.M. for large towns, and 9 P.M. elsewhere.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
thought it hardly worth while for the sake of so slight a difference to re-open the Sunday question, which on a former occasion led to demonstrations in Hyde Park.

§ LORD PORTMAN
thought 12 a better hour than 1 for closing, and 6 a better hour than 5 for opening.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
moved the insertion of a regulation at the beginning of the clause, providing that all licensed premises should be closed on every weekday between 12 o'clock at night and 7 o'clock in the morning. This was the intention of the clause as at present framed, but in its existing shape there was some ambiguity.

§ Amendment moved, p. 9, line 29, having inserted after ("Closed") ("on every day between") moved to insert ("twelve.")—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in order to raise the question, said, he should object to the hour of 12 in the noble Earl's proposal.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, his scheme of hours was as follows:—He proposed that the closing hours in the metropolis should be from 1 A.M. to 5 A.M.—which would meet the case of a number of persons employed in certain classes of occupation in London; he also proposed that in places with a population over 10,000 inhabitants the hours of closing should be from 12 at night to 6 A.M.; and with a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants the hours of closing should be from 11 P.M. till 6 A.M.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
remarked, that if houses were not opened 590 till 7 o'clock persons arriving in London by the early trains would be much inconvenienced.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
believed there would be no more difficulty than at present in the admission of travellers into hotels during the closed hours.

§ On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 31: Majority, 15.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET moved that the hour of opening be 6 o'clock, instead of 7.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that if this proposal represented the sense of the House, he would accept it.

§ The word ("Six") was accordingly substituted, with consequential Amendments.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, they now came to sub-section 2, which applied to houses in the metropolitan police district, but outside the four-mile radius from Charing-cross, and to towns containing not less than 10,000 inhabitants. The sub-section now provided that they should close at 10 o'clock. He had already agreed that houses should open at 6 o'clock on week-day mornings, and if the House thought that the houses contemplated in this sub-section should remain open on Sundays till 11 instead of 10 he should not object.

THE EARL OF BEAUCHAMP
asked why the Bill should apply a different measure to people outside the four-mile radius from that applied to people inside? The East-end of London would not be included within that area, as the West-end would be, yet the people there had the same habits and the same mode of living.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it was necessary to draw the line somewhere, but it was competent to the noble Earl to propose an extension of the limits.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
was sorry that the House was so given up to the fanatical party as to propose to close the public-houses in parts of the metropolitan district at 10 o'clock. The Bill was a piece of Puritanical legislation which he was sure would not work, for it was utterly opposed to the habits and feelings of the people, and he should be very much surprised if it were accepted by the other House of Parliament.

591

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he was willing to take the metropolitan police district, instead of the four-mile radius for sub-section 1. With regard to towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, he proposed to amend the sub-section by fixing the morning hour at 6, the other hours remaining as they were.

§ Amendments made accordingly.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 26 (Punishment of persons found on premises during closing hours) amended and agreed to.

§ Clause 27 (Exemption from closing by order of local authority, in respect of certain houses) agreed to.

§ Clause 28 (Amendment of law as to refreshment-houses) agreed to.

§ Effect of repeated Convictions.

§ Clause 29 (Forfeiture of license on repeated convictions).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he proposed to mitigate the effect of this clause by inserting words making it discretionary, instead of compulsory, with the magistrates to disqualify the premises in respect to which there had been repeated convictions. He would therefore move in page 12, line 40, to leave out "shall," and insert "may if the Court having cognizance of the case in its discretion so thinks fit to order." With regard to the transfer of license, it had been complained that, except in the case of the transfer of the license to an other person, the convictions would run against the house, and that the owner of the house might suffer by the license being taken away without any fault on his part. No real hardship, however, would be inflicted if the owner had notice. If any owner came forward and said he should wish to be registered, notice might be sent to him. He should be willing to propose words in another part of the Bill to effect that object.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, it was impossible to judge what the effect of the Amendments would be until they saw the words which the noble Earl intended to propose. He would suggest that they should wait until the Report before anything more was done with regard to these Amendments.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he should feel himself bound to amend the 592 clause in the manner he had proposed with regard to giving discretionary power to the magistrates.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
suggested that an owner should not be punishable if he showed he had given notice to his tenant at the earliest possible moment after he became aware that an offence had been committed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
proposed to take the suggestion of the noble Marquess into consideration.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 30 (Conviction after five years not to increase penalty) agreed to.

§ Supervision of Licensed Premises.

§ Clause 31 (Appointment of Public-house Inspectors in every police district.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
expressed his belief that the clause was unnecessary, as the machinery now in existence was better adapted for carrying out the object in view than that proposed by the noble Earl. Under the existing system the magistrates could direct every police Inspector to lay before them a report concerning the character of all public-houses, beerhouses, and refreshment-houses in his district. The clause provided that one Inspector should be appointed for every 100,000 inhabitants; but the result of this would be that in some cases an Inspector would have under his charge a district of 40 miles by 30. In his judgment, an Inspector could not furnish the magistrates with trustworthy information as to the character of all the public houses in so large a district. He also objected to the appointment of officers whose special duty would be to find fault with a particular class of people. Believing, therefore, that the present machinery was superior to that now proposed, he begged to move the omission of the clause.

§ Moved, "To leave out Clause 31."—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, the meaning of the clause was that there should be at least one Inspector to every 100,000 inhabitants; but there was nothing to prevent the appointment of additional Inspectors. The present inspection of public-houses by the constabulary no doubt worked satisfactorily 593 in certain counties; but, owing to various causes, that was not the case in boroughs, where the inspection was flagrantly neglected. Last year the Government proposed that special Inspectors should be appointed by the central authority, and that they should have a sort of concomitant jurisdiction with the police; but it was objected that such Inspectors would go about the country like spies. The Government thought there was some force in this objection, and to meet it they proposed to take by the present Bill the least power they could in order to insure that the inspection of public-houses should be complete. The Inspectors appointed under the clause would remain attached to the constabulary force, and if the duty of inspecting public-houses did not occupy all their time they might be otherwise employed. He attached great importance to the clause. It would impose only a slight additional burden on the ratepayers, and was necessary for the proper working of the Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, it would rest with the Secretary of State to determine what the increased burden upon the rates should be, and that would depend upon his view of what was required to carry out the stringent provisions of the Bill; and it appeared from the speech of the noble Earl that he and the present Home Secretary intended to have a new police, which, of course, the counties would have to pay for. Surely, it was hard upon the counties to impose this additional burden on the rates so soon after the House of Commons had determined by a large majority that the money required for the administration of justice should be taken out of the Imperial Exchequer? They were told that the sum would be small; but the burden of rates that now pressed upon them so heavily was made up of small items. He thought it was clearly the duty of the Committee to divide upon this clause, and so mark their sense of a direct attempt to violate a Resolution which had been passed by the House of Commons.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
complained that the effect of the clause would be to treat the rural and the urban districts in a very different manner, with a balance of inequality and injustice against the rural districts. He thought the existing police arrangements were quite 594 sufficient to meet the requirements of the case.

§ LORD EGERTON OF TATTON
instanced several northern counties in which the public-houses were regularly and efficiently inspected and reported upon to the magistrates by the present police force.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, all that was desired by Her Majesty's Government was to procure an efficient inspection. He was aware that a considerable section of the public objected to every proposal which could increase local rating; but he would ask their Lordships whether it was possible to allow all improvements not provided for by Imperial taxation to remain in abeyance until the question of local taxation had been settled—this last question being one which would touch the deepest questions, and which could not possibly be settled for one, two, or three Sessions to come?

§ LORD KESTEVEN
said, the question of local taxation was now at a deadlock, and must be settled before any new system of taxation could be adopted in the suburban districts.

§ THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND
agreed with those noble Lords who urged the importance of efficient inspection, but maintained that the existing police force was perfectly sufficient for the work.

§ THE EARL OF POWIS
thought one effect of the clause would be to leave the towns under a supervision much more lax than that which would be the rule in counties. It would be better, instead of singling out special members of the police force to carry out the law, to leave it to the force generally, as at present; and the magistrates would see that the instructions contained in the Act of Parliament were carried into effect.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
wished it to be understood that the effect of the clause would not be to create a new police force, but simply to add to the existing force in districts where it was not sufficiently numerous to ensure a proper inspection.

§ On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 53: Majority 17.

§ Resolved in the Negative; Clause struck out.

595

§ Clauses 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 (Defining duties of Public-house Inspectors, &c.) struck out.

§ Registers.

§ Clause 38 (Register of Licenses) agreed to.

§ Amendment of Law as to Grant of Licenses.

§ Clause 39 (Licensing Committee in Counties).

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
objected to the proposal in the Bill, partly contained in this clause, with reference to the granting of new licenses. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressed his deliberate and decided opinion that the local magistrates were the best judges who were eligible persons to receive licenses; and now the policy of the Government had been changed. He regarded the condition of obtaining the assent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as not only unnecessary, but as tending to cast a slur on a body of men who had hitherto performed their duties honestly and well; in addition to which there was this further objection—that the Secretary of State could not possibly be acquainted with the wants of the locality, while to the magistrates they would be thoroughly known. That this point was not deemed of any great importance by the Government was evident from the fact that they proposed to confine it to the case of new licenses, and did not suggest the extension of it to transfers of renewals. It would be more simple to accept the proposal he had made that the present licensing body should remain as it was, with the right of appeal from the petty sessions to the committee appointed by the Quarter Sessions, to consist of not less than 3 members and not exceeding 12. There was no pretence for saying that the magistrates had exercised their power in granting licenses improperly; there was, therefore, no reason for depriving them of such power. Under such circumstances, he would propose the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ An Amendment moved, line 32, leave out from ("In") to ("expedient") in line 41 inclusive, and insert—

596 ("every county the justices in quarter sessions assembled shall annually appoint from among themselves a licensing committee, or they may appoint more than one such committee, and assign to any such committee such area of jurisdiction as they may think expedient. "—(The Duke of Richmond.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
objected to the Amendment, which he thought went to the whole root of the Bill, inasmuch that it practically left matters where they now stood. He could understand the proposition as being applicable to counties, but he could not see how it could work in boroughs. Independent of this objection, the plan suggested by the noble Duke provided none of the safeguards contained in the Government measure. He would not say that licenses had been granted by the county magistrates improperly or without due consideration, but it was generally admitted that the number of houses at present licensed was far too large, and Parliament, by the course it had adopted in reference to this subject, had shown a determination not to permit an evil already too great to assume still larger proportions. It was only last year that Parliament passed a Suspensory Act forbidding the granting of any fresh licenses without the sanction of the Secretary of State; and it was a mockery, and worse than a mockery, to attempt to legislate on this subject if they did not adopt some plan for the restriction of new licenses. The plan of the noble Duke opposite would be of no use whatever in this way, for licenses would be granted with just the same absence of discrimination, and deference to the public-house interest rather than the interest of the public, as they were now. The proposal of the Government was to make the concurrence of three bodies necessary to the granting of a new license. They therefore provided that in counties an application for a fresh license should receive the approval first of all of the authorities as at present constituted; secondly, of a committee of Quarter Sessions; and, finally, the assent of the Secretary of State. In boroughs where there was a numerous body of magistrates a similar process had to be gone through; but in smaller boroughs, where it would be impossible to form a committee out of the already small number of magistrates, the assent of the whole body, in the first instance would be submitted, without any intervention, to the Secretary of State. The 597 result of that system, he believed, would be that no license would be refused where it could be shown that any real want existed. The case of renewals and transfers stood upon an entirely different footing. He should have been glad to introduce in the Bill further restrictions in that direction, if it could have been done consistently with the interest of those already engaged in the trade. It was inexpedient, however, to deal with renewals beyond what was absolutely necessary; the main point was to introduce a very strict revision of the granting of new licenses.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, the Suspensory Act was passed under special circumstances. Parliament had indicated its intention to restrict the granting of licenses, and it was feared there would be a great rush of application for such licenses. For this temporary purpose nothing could be more proper than to give the Home Secretary a veto on the granting of new licenses; but what it was wise to do for a time, it would be unwise to do as a permanent arrangement. From present appearances it was certainly inexpedient to add to the duties of the Home Secretary—indeed, it was obviously impossible for the Home Secretary, overwhelmed already by the weight of his other duties, to determine in his office in Downing Street the merits of every application for a new license, or whether more public-houses were wanted in a particular district or not. The legislation on this point should be positive, and there should be no possibility of one Secretary of State undoing the act of another Secretary of State. And if the duty were thrust upon him, upon what principle was he to act? Was he to lay down a rule for himself that he would allow no more licenses, to be granted beyond a certain number, according to the population? That was a feasible rule, but different Secretaries of State might lay down different rules. If the Home Secretary were to decide the question upon the merits, how was he to gain evidence as to whether the premises of A. B. were properly constructed, or whether he was a trustworthy person? All the Secretary of State could do would be to resort to private inquiry, and the granting of licenses would degenerate into a party question, than which nothing could be more objectionable. If they wanted to 598 bring the Secretary of State into ridicule and involve the matter in inextricable complexity, they could not do better than place this power in the hands of that high officer.

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET
thought as regarded counties a revision of the decision of the eommittee by the magistrates of the county would be a very good plan; but did not approve the proposal to give the Home Secretary the power of refusing a license. If he exercised the right, questions would be frequent in the House of Commons on the subject, and perhaps direct Motions would be made—a course which would detract from the character of the office of Secretary of State.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would have no objection to striking out the words conferring the power of veto on the Home Secretary, provided the other part of the clause was allowed to stand, the object of which was to control the number of new licenses issued.

§ The words enacting "approval of Secretary of State" struck out.

§ On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53, Not-Contents 50: Majority 3.

§ Resolved in the Affirmative.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 40 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.

§ Clause 45 (Confirmation of licenses) struck out.

§ Clauses 46 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

§ Legal Proceedings.

§ Clauses 50 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.

§ Clause 53 (Liabilities of aiders and abettors) struck out.

§ Clauses 54 and 55 agreed to.

§ Clause 56 (Power of justices to direct prosecution of offences) struck out.

§ Clause 57 agreed to.

§ Miscellaneous.

§ Clauess 58 and 59 agreed to.

§ Clause 60 (Appearance of justices to defend appeal) struck out.

§ Clauses 61 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.

599

§ Saving Clauses.

§ Clause 66 (Saving of certain rights).

§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSET moved the rejection of sub-section 11, which provides for the sale of wine by retail, not to be consumed upon the premises, by a wine merchant in pursuance of a wine-dealer's license granted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
objected to the omission, on the ground that the grocers' license, which would be affected by the rejection of the sub-section in question, would take away the existing security for the sale of pure wines and spirits by retail.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the sub-section required at least amendment, and he would bring up an Amendment on the Report.

§ Clause agreed to.

§ Definitions.

§ Clause 67 (Interpretation) amended, and agreed to.

§ Repeal.

§ Clause 68 (Repeal of Acts mentioned in Schedule).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
proposed to insert— And in particular there shall be repealed so much of the Wine and Beerhouses Acts as makes such Acts temporary in their duration, and the said Acts shall henceforth be perpetual.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.

§ First Schedule ("Deleterious Ingredients") agreed to.

§ Preamble considered and amended by inserting the words "and the better prevention of drunkenness," as one of the objects of the Bill.

§ The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday the 6th of June next; and Bill to be printed as amended (No. 106).