Lords Sitting of 7 July 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Chain Cables and Anchors* (157); Rating* (158); Foyle College* (159).
Committee—Intoxicating Liquors (130–100): Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5)* (99).
Report—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates* (93); Bills of Sale Amendment* (152); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation* (153).
Third Reading—Apothecaries Act Amendment* (116); Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment* (126); Alkali Act (1863) Amendment * (115), and passed.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.
(The Lord Steward.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  (NO. 130.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Preliminary.
  Clause I (Construction and short title of Act) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act) agreed to.
  Hours of Closing.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYproposed, after Clause 2, to insert a new clause. The principle of this Bill seemed, no doubt, to he a limitation on the discretion of the magistrates in respect of the hours of public-houses—though he believed no complaint had been made as to the manner in which they exercised their discretion under the existing Act. In the course, however, of the discussion on the Bill in the other House, it was found necessary to relax in some respect that principle; a difficulty arose about defining populous places, and at last the

  1187
  difficulty was solved by referring it to the discretion of the magistrate. After the experience the magistrates had acquired as to the wants of the populations in their respective localities, and the very satisfactory manner in which they had exercised their discretion in respect of the hours of opening in the morning, he hoped their Lordships would adopt the clause he now begged to propose, and not allow the Bill to become law with a hard-and-fast line drawn at the hour of 6 in the morning. In Birkenhead, Liverpool, Manchester, and other large towns the manufacturers and employers were in favour of the hour of 7 for opening; great advantage had been found from that late hour, and he hoped the power would be left with the magistrates to continue that regulation.
  Moved, after Clause 2, to insert the following clause:—
  "In any town or (populous place) beyond the metropolitan district the licensing justices may by order made in the manner prescribed by the principal Act direct that the time at which such premises within any town or (populous place) shall be opened on the mornings of all days, except Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, shall be other than the horn' herein-before prescribed; but no such order shall prescribe a time for opening earlier than five o'clock nor later than seven o' clock in the morning of such days."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPopposed the clause—it either went too far or not far enough. The noble Earl was correct in saying that the principle of the Bill was to limit the discretion of the magistrates, and the Amendment of the noble Earl proposed to run counter to that principle, though only in respect to the hours of opening. If it was right to restore the discretion in respect of hours, it ought to be restored entirely and not in the partial manner proposed by the Amendment. The object of limiting the discretion in the way it was done by the Bill was to prevent the anomaly of different hours in different licensing districts—hours fixed not on any general principle, but in accordance with the individual opinions of the justices of the district. The case of exemptions to meet the wants of particular callings and occupations was provided for by Clause 5, and therefore the Amendment of the noble Earl was unnecessary in the case of persons following such occupations.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he wished the Government would consent to legislate on the principle laid down by the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp), and that they would assign some valid reason for the course they were pursuing in respect of the hours of opening and closing. The question was not one of public morals, but one of public convenience. When the Bill of 1872 was introduced it contained a provision that the hour for opening public-houses should be 6 o'clock; but in the course of the discussions it was found that to draw a hard-and-fast line like that would be productive of much inconvenience. It was stated that a great number of persons engaged at night occupations were in the habit of breakfasting at public-houses before they went home, and that others who came from their homes at a very early hour used public-houses in order to obtain refreshment before going to their work. Parliament consequently, resolved to give a discretion to the magistrates. In Liverpool, the hour fixed for opening was 7 o'clock. The question being one of the convenience of the working classes the magistrates took much pains to ascertain the feeling of the working class on the subject of the hours for opening and closing, and they ascertained that no fewer than four-fifths of that class—those who worked in the large establishments especially—were in favour of 7 o'clock as the hour for opening and 10 as the hour for closing. The magistrates adopted 7 as the hour for opening, but they shrank from adopting so early an hour as 10 as the time for closing, and they consequently fixed at 11 o'clock. Chester, Birmingham, Hull, Gateshead, and he believed other places, followed the example of Liverpool in making 7 the opening hour. The city of Manchester, which had paid much attention to the working of the Act, fixed on 6 as the hour for opening, and 11, the hour adopted at Liverpool as the hour for closing; but, a few evenings ago, he presented to their Lordships' House a Petition from the justices of Manchester, in which they stated that after full consideration, they were prepared to adopt 7 o'clock as the hour for opening, being satisfied that what had been done elsewhere had given satisfaction. He challenged the Government to show that the slightest hardship had been felt or complained of in the large towns in which 7 was the hour for

  1189
  opening. If they could not do so, why should they make any change in the Act for the purpose of establishing a principle which was no principle at all—certainly not a just one? The wishes and convenience of the people were to be consulted. There was no political principle and no moral principle involved in the proposal of the Government, and as the justices had hitherto exercised their discretion in a perfectly satisfactory manner, he would support the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) clearly indicated that what he desired was not a discretion of opening earlier, but a discretion of opening later. What the noble Lord wished to do was to follow the wish of those who used public-houses. But it was obvious that those who used public-houses had the remedy in their own hands. If they did not wish to go into public-houses before 7 o'clock, they could abstain from doing so. The noble Lord said it was the almost unanimous wish of the working classes in Liverpool, Chester, and other large towns that public-houses should not be open till 7 o'clock. If that were so, why need they go in? But what he suspected was that what these members of the working classes wanted was that their neighbours should not be allowed to go into public-houses before that hour. The noble Lord challenged the Government to say what was the principle of their proposal. The noble Lord asked whether it was a political principle or a moral principle, or what it was? His reply was that it was the principle of freedom—the principle that you were not to prevent one man from doing what he liked so long as he was acting within the law merely because another man objected to what he was doing. The original proposal of the Government with regard to the hour of opening had been somewhat modified. What they wished to do was to fix such hours of opening as would generally suit the habits of the population. But the question of the hour of closing was essentially different from that of opening. A consideration of police was involved in the former—because when they fixed a late hour for closing, they made the task of the police more difficult; but would any one assert that the hour of opening being earlier made the task of the police more difficult?
  1190
  If they proceeded on the uncongenial principle of fixing by Act of Parliament what was good for the working classes—if they intended to fix for them, of what their breakfast should be composed, and at what hour they should be permitted to take it, they would be entering the regions of paternal Government. It was no more the province of Parliament to fix what the working classes should drink than it was its province to fix what they should eat. If it was not good for them to begin work with a dram of whiskey in their stomachs, that was for themselves and not for Parliament. By attempting to introduce an uncongenial limitation of this kind they would be infringing the principle of liberty on which our legislation hitherto had been based, and laying down new principles of legislation which, upon other subjects and under a political system where power resided with the greatest numbers, would some day be used most disadvantageously against them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the noble Marquess could not have read the clause proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), whose Amendment was now before their Lordships. Had he read it, he never could have argued as he had done in the speech just addressed to their Lordships. The whole of the argument of the noble Marquess was against opening at a later hour than that provided in the Bill; but the clause proposed to be introduced said, the magistrates might make the time of opening an hour earlier—because they might fix it at 5 o'clock if they chose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They might make it an hour later—7 o'clock, if they chose.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: An Lour later, or an hour earlier—that was at the discretion of the justices. But why should the noble Marquess assume an hour later, and found his argument against the clause on that assumption? He quite agreed with the principle laid down by the noble Marquess that there was a difference between the question of the hour of opening and that of the hour of closing, inasmuch as the latter involved considerations of police. But the question now before their Lordships was the hours of opening, which did not. The noble Marquess talked of the convenience of the labouring classes. Was it for the convenience of the labouring

  1191
  classes that a hard-and-fast hour of 6 o'clock should he fixed by Act of Parliament, and that no discretion should be left to the justices in order that there might be a relaxation for their benefit. In considering the Bill of 1872, they came to the conclusion that it was better to fix the hours at 5 and 7 than at 6 o'clock, leaving it to the discretion of the magistrates to fix them at either 5 or 7, as the wants of any particular locality might reqnire, or as the justices might think fit. He again submitted that the noble Marquess could not have read the clause, which he trusted their Lordships would accept.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl says that the noble Marquess could not have read the clause; but the noble Marquess had heard—and they had all heard—the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), and he asked whether the whole of that speech was not in favour of having a later hour for opening than that fixed by the Bill?
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he had distinctly admitted it was necessary, on behalf of persons engaged in some callings, that an earlier hour was required, and that a provision to that effect had been introduced into the Act of 1872; and what he said was that power should be given in the Bill to fix the opening hour between 5 and 7 o'clock to meet the wants of an agricultural population on the one hand, or those of the operatives employed in large towns on the other.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But all the instances cited by the noble Lord were those of towns in which a later hour was adopted. The noble Marquess followed the noble Lord, and argued against restrictions in the way of making the hours of opening later. As to the Amendment before the House, he would ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) to look at Clause 5. If it should be thought that the powers of relaxation given by that clause were not sufficient, the question of enlarging them could be considered on that clause.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Amendment proposed was entirely unnecessary. The Government had received expressions of opinion from all parts of the country and towns in England, numbering from 600 to 800 places, to the effect that the hour of opening at 6 o'clock
  1192
  was sufficient, and he was very sorry his noble Friend should propose to alter the hour proposed in the Bill. The clause did not at all apply to agricultural labour; and, as he just said, they had received representations from a large number of towns and populous places, showing that the hours fixed by the Act of 1872 were quite satisfactory.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided; Contents 69; Not-Contents 108: Majority 39.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause 3 (Hours of closing premises licensed for sale of intoxicating liquors.)
  Amendments made, in page 1, line 20, by leaving out ("licensed for the sale of"), and inserting (" in which "); and after ("liquors") inserting ("are sold.")
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONobserved that he knew of no reason why the hours of closing in the Metropolis should be later than they were in the country; but on Sundays he thought there was no justification whatever for the difference. There might be reasons; and, if so, probably the noble Earl could inform him.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out ("eleven") and insert (" nine.")—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that in London and the large towns a great number of persons were in the habit of going into the country to spend their Sundays, returning home at various hours in the evening. It was, therefore, thought desirable that the later hour for closing fixed for the Metropolis should be extended to the Sunday also. 10 o'clock would certainly be too early an hour for London. There were also numerous excursion parties for whom reasonable facilities ought to be allowed for obtaining refreshments. He hoped their Lordships would support the provisions in the Bill in this respect, as it did not do to impose restrictions that were not supported by public opinion. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would retain 11 o'clock as the hour for closing in the Metropolis on Sundays.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he thought this would be a convenient time to raise the question whether 12 or 12.30 should be the hour for closing on week nights. He regretted the excellent example of the Act of 1872 as regarded the hours of closing had not been adhered to in the present Bill, but that they should be extended by it half-an-hour beyond the time then sanctioned. He had given Notice, on the second reading of the Bill, of his intention to move an Amendment in Committee on this part of the Bill, and he now desired to direct their Lordships' attention to the subject. When the Bill was in the House of Commons there was a very general opinion pronounced in favour of retaining the hours of closing mentioned in the Act of 1872; but it was represented that those hours interfered with the habits of large bodies of the population, and on their part it was asked that the hour in the Metropolis should be extended to 12.30. It was in view of the wants of a certain part of the population of the Metropolis that a power was given to the Commissioners of Police to give exemptions in the case of a few public-houses situated in the vicinity of the theatres, so as to enable persons who visited them to obtain refreshments after the close of the performances. Subsequent experience had shown that the half-hour thus allowed was of no use for the purpose for which it was intended; and he wanted to know the reasons why they should now change the hour of closing from 12 to 12.30. The Home Secretary, and the Under Secretary also—a Gentleman who had paid great attention to the working of the Act of 1872—had arrived at the conclusion that the exempted houses were visited, not by persons who had been passing the evening at the theatre, but by persons who had been turned out of other public-houses, and who availed themselves of the exempted houses for the purpose of obtaining more drink. In the Metropolitan District there were 8,000 drinking-houses—public-houses and beer-houses included, so that the effect of this change in the Act of 1872 would be to create daily 4,000 additional hours for night drinking. Some Friends of his, Members of Parliament, had visited a few public-houses for the purpose of observing what sort of people frequented them at that hour. They were described as being persons not of
  1194
  the class for whom the exemption was intended, but almost invariably persons not of temperate habits—the sort of persons, in fact, who eventually got into workhouses, gaols, and lunatic asylums. This was a reason for doing away with the exemptions, but it was quite the contrary to a reason for extending the ordinary hours of closing from 12 to 12.30. Strong reasons should appear for such an extension before it was adopted. Not only public-houses would have the benefit of it, but beer-houses also, which never before were permitted to be open after 12, were to be entitled to the additional half-hour. He could not understand what motive could have actuated the Government in proposing this extension of hours. They knew that the keepers of public-houses did not desire it, and they had never regarded closing at 12 o'clock as a grievance. Wherever he had been he had heard of the general comfort and advantage which had been secured under the Act of 1872 by closing at 12 o'clock; and, in fact, he believed it was only cabmen who had complained of it—that it was the cause of their losing many fares—persons who were about at a late hour of the night, and many of them incapable of walking home. The Lord Chief Justice, as their Lordships might be aware, had decided that persons served with liquor before 12 might be allowed a reasonable time afterwards to drink it. The effect of that decision was that houses were kept open after 12; but he challenged the Government to say whether it was not in only very rare instances that that was either done or desired, and he appealed to their Lordships whether it was not desired, not by respectable persons, but by persons of the class to which he had referred.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out ("half an hour after.")—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the noble Lord's indignation at the change proposed by the Bill, seemed so great that he thought it would have taken a better form of expression if he had taken the course of moving the rejection of the Bill altogether. The clauses regulating the hours of closing contained some of the chief provisions of the Bill, and amongst these there were few provisions

  1195
  more important than the hours of closing public-houses throughout the Metropolitan districts. On the second reading he adverted to this part of the Bill, and drew their Lordships' attention to the reasons which had induced the Government to alter the hours, and he would not now repeat the argument he then used. He thought their Lordships must all be aware, from personal observation, of the great inconvenience which had been occasioned by midnight closing, although from their habit of attending their clubs and having well provided and comfortable houses, they could not appreciate the inconvenience to the full extent. The Government were decidedly of opinion that the exemptions now allowed should cease. The proposition of the noble Lord would restrict the law as it at present existed, because the interpretation which had been put upon the clause with regard to closing in the Metropolis had certainly made 12.15 instead of 12, the hour at which public-houses were to be closed. That was practically the case; and if their Lordships were to adopt the proposal of the noble Lord, the effect would be to cut off the present quarter of an hour, and tie the inhabitants of the Metropolis down to a hard-and-fast line, thus making the law even more stringent then it was at present. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEthought his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare) had taken the proper course in moving the Amendment, instead of moving the rejection of the Bill. He contended that no reason whatever had been assigned for the extension of hours proposed. Moreover, it had been demanded by nobody, and was strongly deprecated by persons who were most competent to form an opinion on the subject. For his part, he owned that he saw no necessity for the extension. At the same time he wished it to be understood that he did not oppose the clause from any party feeling. He hoped the times were past when their Lordships would vote against any particular measure merely because it emanated from a Government to which they themselves were in opposition; and he should regret very much to see any single Peer on that side of the House vote either for or against the Amendment unless he believed that in
  1196
  doing so he was consulting not party interests; but the interests of the public. A powerful newspaper had paid the Peers an unusual compliment for their independent conduct in passing the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped that they would be uninfluenced throughout their deliberations on this Bill by the slightest party feeling.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, although the noble Earl (Earl Granville) supported the Amendment of the noble Lord beside him, he had not said one word in its favour or stated the grounds for the course he had taken. He had told their Lordships something which had appeared in the newspapers—which was new to him—about the proper manner in which they had taken this matter into consideration, and how they had been complimented upon it. The noble Earl had asked them to consider this small question—small as regarded the arguments which had been adduced by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) in support of his Amendment, although not so small as regarded the principle of the Bill. He (the Lord Chancellor) did not propose to weigh very minutely the evidence to which the noble Lord had referred; but there was one thing which struck him most forcibly as regarded the present law, although he should not stop to inquire how it came about. He referred to the provision for the closing of public-houses in the Metropolis at 12 o'clock, while giving exemption to certain public-houses near theatres. Now, he could not imagine any trade enduring an exemption of that kind. He believed no attempt to carry out exemption of that kind in this country would give satisfaction. To say, that throughout the whole of the Metropolis, as a general rule, the closing hour should be 12 o'clock, but that certain favoured persons, because they happened to live in the neighbourhood of theatres, should have a privilege granted to them which was denied to all others—that of selling half-an-hour later than their neighbours—was a state of things which could not continue. Whatever might be the hour fixed for closing, it was utterly impossible, in the face of public opinion, and in the interest of the trade, to grant exemption privileges in particular neighbourhoods which were denied by others. As he understood the proposition of the

  1197
  noble Lord it was to continue the Act as before, with that exemption.
  LORD ABERDARE: Without the exemption. I am for restricting the hour to 12 o'clock, giving no kind of exemption.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is an entirely new proposal, and ought to have been clearly intimated in the Amendment. The noble Lord is not dealing with the words with which we are now occupied, but with that part of the Bill which provides these exemptions. The proposal of the noble Lord is, in effect, to alter the Act of 1872, by making the hour of closing, in the metropolis practically, half-an-hour earlier.
  LORD ABERDARE: No, that is not so. Allow me to explain. The Act of 1872 fixed 12 o'clock, but allowed certain exemptions, which have proved to be useless, unnecessary, and objectionable I therefore propose to sweep them away, and make the hour of closing 12 o'clock, as it has been for the last two years.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is exactly what I was stating. But with the absolute hour of closing there was an exemption which has been granted to certain houses. Does the noble Lord mean to say that during that extra half-hour so allowed for closing no liquor was sold?
  LORD ABERDARE: No.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I say that those houses had an advantage over all their neighbours, because they did not close at 12 o'clock, but at a later hour. But that is not all. By consequence of the wording of the Act of 1872 a decision was given by a Court of Law that a certain portion of time was to be allowed over and above the hour of closing, during which margin of time liquor already ordered might be consumed on the premises; and therefore, in point of fact, the wording of the Act of 1872 was such that the time of closing in the metropolis was not 12 o'clock, but, at least, 12.15, and perhaps later; while the privileged houses kept open a still longer period. The principle of this Bill is to put an end to these exemptions, and to this litigated question of what margin should be allowed for the consumption of liquor ordered before closing time. By putting all on one level, and fixing one uniform, un-
  1198
  varying hour, jealousy, litigation, and dispute will be prevented; and in order that the convenience of the public may not be interfered with as a consequence, the Bill, by giving an extension of half-an-hour, gives as nearly as possible the same increment of time as now is permitted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was nothing so dangerous as to stand upon principle when they came to discuss the clauses of a Bill. As to the question of principle, he would refer their Lordships to the 26th section of the Act of 1872 with regard to exemptions; and as this Bill adopted that clause to some extent, and provided for other cases, the argument of the noble and learned Lord on point of principle failed. The exemptions in regard to houses near theatres had admittedly worked extremely ill, being frequented by persons of bad character, and not so much by those who used the theatres. Although that was admitted by the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, yet it was now proposed to do away with that as a special exemption, and allow all the houses to keep open to the exemption hour. He should support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was quite certain the Act of 1872 had not received the approbation of the country; and if there was one point in it which more than another had created public dissatisfaction, it was the clause which restricted the hours of keeping the public-houses open. It had always struck him that the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare) had all along treated his Bill as a measure for the sale of intoxicating liquors, forgetful that people resorted to public-houses for various other purposes besides that of drinking. There were many persons who obtained in those houses the natural sustenance which they required. The principle of the present Bill was to give greater freedom to all classes, in place of the coercion introduced by the existing Act; but if their Lordships now agreed to curtail the time of keeping open by this half-hour, they would be imposing an undue restriction upon the freedom of a large number of persons frequenting theatres and places of amusement, and would deprive them of that sustenance which they required.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, nothing could be considered a small matter which affected the religion and morals of the people. The evidence was overwhelming that the half-hour in question was of far more importance than all the previous hours of the evening, inasmuch as all the police reports concurred in stating that there was more drunkenness during the last hour or two that the public-houses were kept open than during the rest of the day. He, therefore, held that if their Lordships were to grant this additional half-hour for drinking at the end of the night, they would be giving occasion for more harm than occurred in an hour at any other period of the day. The noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had argued in favour of the half-hour on behalf of those who frequented the theatres and other places of amusement. In the law as it stood the houses in the neighbourhood of these places of amusement were allowed to remain open for half-an-hour longer than was the rule, for the accommodation of those persons; but the question was, did these persons use them? It was his opinion they did not; but that those exempted houses were the resort of bad characters, and not of respectable persons really requiring refreshment. Moreover they put temptation in the way of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He would mention one class—the coachmen and footmen who were taking charge of the carriages of their masters. These men, when remaining in idleness outside the theatres, were led by the evil influence of others to go into the public-houses. They did not require anything to eat or to drink, as they had plenty provided for them at home. He confessed he could not see what possible justification there could be for adding half-an-hour to the worst period of the night.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDconsidered the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed their Lordships had made too sweeping a charge against a meritorious class when he stated that the houses were frequented by livery servants who were kept out at late hours in charge of their masters' carriages. There was no evidence to support that statement. He (the Duke of Richmond) had the other evening quoted an extraordinary paper which showed that where the hours of closing were early there was more drunkenness than in those places in which they
  1200
  were permitted to keep open for a longer time.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That would be a reason against closing them at all.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDdid not think the noble Earl with all his acuteness could prove that. There were, however, excellent reasons in favour of 12.30. The noble Lord in the Act of 1872 fixed the hour of closing at 12 o'clock, but he made an exception in favour of the houses in the neighbourhood of the theatres and places of amusement. The consequence was that people were allowed to go into those houses and to remain there until 1 o'clock to consume the liquor which they had purchased before 12.30. He would now ask them to see what would be the effect of the Amendment. It would in the first place do away with those exemptions, but it would also practically close the houses at 11.45, as people would have to clear out at once, without having any time allowed them to consume the liquor they might have bought before that hour. Under those circumstances he hoped their Lordships would not agree to the proposal of the noble Lord.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGHsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) had said that the principle of this Bill was based upon freedom as opposed to coercion: but he (the Bishop of Peterborough) did not see how the principle of liberty could be said to be involved in this Bill either in its relation to the publicans or to the public. In no sense could a Licensing Bill be a Bill in favour of liberty, as the very idea of a licence was restriction. As regarded the publican, the Licensing Acts conferred on him a valuable and, in some cases, a dangerous monopoly; and Parliament in conferring upon him that privilege had a right to put such conditions and restrictions upon the exercise of it as might appear to be necessary. That was the case as regarded the publican. If their Lordships would now consider it in respect to the public they would see that if they—the public—were to have uncontrolled liberty to resort to those houses when they pleased, that would be doing away with all restrictions whatever. He did not, then, see how, if they closed the houses at 12 o'clock it could be considered a reversion of all liberty, while to keep them open half-an-hour would be

  1201
  universal liberty. It might be a question of policy, but certainly not one of liberty or coercion; and therefore he would submit that the principle of restraint was necessary both for the public and for the publican. The argument that a quarter of an hour's margin would have to be allowed was as strong in the one case as in the other, and he ventured to say that the balance of evidence was in favour of closing at 12 o'clock.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas of opinion that the right rev. Prelate and the 749 clergymen who had appeared on the scene to-day had committed the error into which ministers of religion in all ages had fallen—of calling in the secular authority to carry out those objects which, if right, they ought to attain by their own preaching and ministrations. Sobriety, was no doubt a very good thing, but it ought to be enforced not by Act of Parliament, but by moralists and preaching and admonition. They were asked to save footmen from the temptation of an open public-house; but suppose the footmen were to take up the argument, and ask what their masters and mistresses were doing inside the house outside of which the servants were waiting? "Was it so extravagant that whilst champagne was being consumed inside, beer should be drunk outside? The argument was that temperance should be encouraged and enforced upon footmen, but it did not matter whether the ladies and gentlemen adopted it or not. In the present distribution of political power and the keenness with which all the actions of the upper and middle classes were watched, he earnestly protested against its being laid down that the upper classes were safe from temptation, whilst it was their business and duty to protect and preserve those belo wthem from temptation. He was afraid that the insinuation might be retorted, and that at some not distant period the upper classes might be protected themselves. When information became more spread among the people, he had no doubt it would be their destiny to advance not in the way of restriction, but in the way of freedom. He did not desire to advance too fast, but he claimed for the Bill that it was an advance in the direction of freedom as great as the country was prepared now to take.
  LORD CARLINGFORDpresumed that the support given by the noble Marquess
  1202
  to this Bill was in the belief that it was but the first stage to unlimited freedom, and that subsequent measures would extend the time of closing, and perhaps in the end leave the question entirely to the decision of the licensed victuallers themselves. For himself, however, he concurred entirely in the reasons which had been urged by his noble Friend behind him.
  After a few words from the Earl BEAUCHAMP,
  LORD DENMANdesired to remind their Lordships that by another section in the Bill the licensed victualler could if he pleased, close at 11.30 in the Metropolitan district.
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  On sub-section 2 which fixes the hours of closing beyond the Metropolitan district and in the Metropolitan Police district, or in a town and populous place as defined by this Act.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYtook exception to the definition in the Bill of districts which were called "towns" and "populous places." They had in this sub-section provision made for the regulation of hours in places which formed as it were an intermediate stage between the metropolis and the rural sections of counties. If he turned to the Interpretation Clause, he found that "town" meant "an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act 1872," it was directed—
  "Any collection of houses adjoining a town as so defined shall for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises he deemed to he part of such town after it has been declared so to be by an order of the county licensing committee having jurisdiction in the place where such houses are situated."
  Then came the proviso that—
  "No urban sanitary district, whether including such adjoining houses or not, shall he deemed a town, unless it contains one thousand inhabitants."
  Then they had the definition of a "populous place,"—
  "Any area which by reason of the number and density of its population not being less than one thousand, the county licensing committee may by order determine to be a populous place."
  It was thus left to every county licensing committee to determine what was and what was not "a populous place." What then became of the principle of the Bill

  1203
  that the discretion of the magistrates was to be abolished? The retention of these definitions would in his opinion operate unfairly by allowing houses to be open in one district, while in the district immediately adjoining they were compelled to be closed. Or, a petty sessional division might include an area containing 2,000 or 3,000 persons, including a village with a population of 1,000 persons. It was possible therefore that one portion of the area might be under one set of hours and the other under others.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 2, to leave out (" or in a populous place.")—(The Earl of Morley.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdefended the definition of "town" as "an urban sanitary district as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1872." The Local Government Board had now laid down a rule not to constitute an area into "a suburban sanitary district," with a less population than 2,000. Before that rule was applied, suburban sanitary districts of considerably less population were constituted, and the Bill provided that no place with less than 1,000 population should be deemed to be a "populous place." Every one knew the difficulty of defining what was town and what was country. In taking the Census of 1871 the same difficulty was felt in drawing a distinction between urban and rural parishes. It was found impossible indeed to apply any rule, and the Registrar General said, that "a great deal must be left to the judgment and discretion of the persons employed." The same difficulty arose in this Bill, and it must be surmounted in the same way. He was not wedded to the definition given in the Bill if any better could be produced, but on mature reflection he believed it would be found the very best that had presented itself. Then as regarded "populous places." There might be a certain amount of inconvenience perhaps in the multiplication of areas, but it rested with the licensing committee, provided the population was not less than 1,000, to determine what was a populous place. They had to consider all the cases within their jurisdiction, with respect to which it was incumbent on them to make orders, and they had the power of specifying the boundaries of towns or populous places, and to add adjacent houses
  1204
  to a town, so as to include them within the "populous place." Precise rules could not be laid down, but it was important that the decision in each case should be uniform. The principle of uniformity was, no doubt, of the greatest importance; but was it not better to leave the decision of that question to the justices throughout the country—well-qualified men—and not confine its meaning to the strict and hard principles laid down by law? By allowing thorn to decide in each case according to their discretion, there was no violation of the principle of uniformity in leaving the power to men who had all the advantages of local knowledge within their respective districts. He trusted their Lordships would see that the distinction drawn in the Bill was a real one. Our population was divided into three classes—a rural, an urban, and a metropolitan population—to each of whom and to supply their wants and wishes a clause was especially devoted in the Bill. To interpret what the law was as laid down by these clauses was left to competent men to decide according to circumstances, and no Amendment proposed would meet or remove the difficulties of the case. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment of the noble Earl—to omit the words "populous place "—would not be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was glad his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Morley) brought this question under their Lordships' consideration, for he thought it one of the most important parts of the Bill. Indeed, he intended to have moved such an Amendment himself, but he expected the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) would have been prepared to alter and correct the clause. He said in the debate on the second reading of this Bill that he should be very glad to make the clause more satisfactory. Then, why did he not do so? It could not, he believed, be done. The phrase "populous district" or "populous place" was an obscure and indefinite term:—and when it was said that no discretion should be given to magistrates in this difficult case, power was given to interpret a clause which nobody understood, and to licensing committees throughout the country to decide what a "populous place" or a "populous district" meant. "Populous" and "populous places"

  1205
  were relative terms, yet no definition was given as a guide; now it was certain that if they had no definition to go by, the magistrates throughout the country would come to conflicting decisions, and then what became of their so-called uniformity? They would find none whatever. There existed 58,000 public-houses and 2,000 beer-shops outside the metropolitan district, and of that 58,000, 43,000 would be affected by this clause—how they would be affected entirely depended on the view the magistrates might take of what was a "populous place," and this would in his opinion lead to great misconception and evil. The Bill provided that in places not populous districts the hours for opening should be 10 o'clock. For his own part, he was afraid that the alteration so made, instead of being an improvement, would be a step backward. It was creating a new element, a maximum of uncertainty, when nobody would know what course to pursue. He agreed with the noble Earl that there was a difficulty in drawing a line between town and country, and he would suggest to him to try and introduce some words which would have that effect. But if the noble Earl could not hold out a hope that he could devise a satisfactory definition of a populous place, he hoped his noble Friend would divide the House on his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Earl who had just sat down complained of there being no definition of the term "populous place," and that it was therefore unsatisfactory and difficult to be understood. But Her Majesty's Government were in no way responsible for the introduction of the words "of not less than 1,000 inhabitants," which constituted a populous place. They were inserted in the House of Commons by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) who was a Colleague of the noble Earl. Very possibly the insertion of these words had not tended to improve the Bill. The noble Earl said a definition had been inserted in the Bill of what a "populous place" was, which was no definition; but he would remind him that these very words had been already inserted in two Acts of Parliament, the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 33 sec. 22, and the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 101. They had therefore two Act of Parliament containing a positive definition of what was intended. Moreover, a Bill introduced into the other House this
  1206
  Session by Sir Robert Anstruther dealt with the subject in the very same way. Populous places were thus recognized as places ascertained to be such according to a particular rule. He hoped he had disposed therefore of his noble Friend's objection that the term "populous place" had not been defined, having shown that the definition of it already existed in two Acts of Parliament. The noble Lord had himself admitted, moreover, that the definition was such as would bring within a town certain places outside its regular limits. Such portions would be included within the adjacent borough, as it would be inconvenient for persons visiting the town for marketing or for other purposes, and putting up in such places, to be outside the jurisdiction of the town, owing to their not forming a part of the area subject to the sanitary authority. The arrangement proposed by the Bill was therefore a necessary one. He would not discuss the propriety of giving the magistrates the discretion of determining what were populous places; but he would say he thought it was a discretion that could be exercised by the licensing justices quite as well as by the Census Commissioners who had in their Report attempted to solve the definition of "populous place."
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he should not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Amendment. At the same time he would remark that it seemed to be admitted that the definition in the Bill was a very unsatisfactory one. Perhaps, when they came to the Interpretation Clause it might be amended, or on the Report the Government might be able to announce that a better one had occurred to them.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the words in the Bill were not inserted by the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHrose to make a suggestion, which might, perhaps, obviate the difficulty—namely, to omit the words after" district" in the first line of the clause, and also of sub-section 3; the effect of which, he said, would be to introduce the uniform hour of 11 for closing in all places outside the metropolitan district. It would simplify the Bill very much, and get rid of the necessity of defining "time" and "populous place," and make the law alike for all. He could really see no objection to the proposal. So far as he had observed the

  1207
  working of the Act of 1872, though it might have had some beneficial effect, it had not stopped drinking among a certain class. Though they certainly did not see the streets and the village roads so full of drunkards as before, there was, practically, a great deal of drinking going on; but whereas drinking was before confined for the most part to men and grown-up boys, it was now extending among women, and even among children. That circumstance proved that the diminution of the hours had not operated as a check upon drinking so much as had been supposed; and when so great a simplification of the Bill was to be obtained in the way he had pointed out, he did not think that the fear of occasioning more drinking should be allowed to weigh against the advantage which it would confer.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he wished to say a few words on the subject under consideration. In discussing it, they must bear in mind the Interpretation Clause. No doubt this was an extremely difficult question, but it was a difficulty they must face and endeavour to deal with in some way. He would also venture to remind their Lordships that the point had received great attention in the other House of Parliament, and that different views were taken with regard to it—in fact it was not at all surprising that the definition should be open to criticism and observation. He ventured to suggest that in the Interpretation Clause the words "not being loss than one thousand" had been inserted in the wrong place. The Bill imposed upon the justices the duty of understanding the word "town" as it was defined by the Public Health Act; but they were to include in the town any place or places which in their discretion ought to be included in it, provided there were not less than 1,000 inhabitants in the whole area thus included. As regarded towns, that discretion was given, and a very important discretion it was. He thought there should be an interchange of words in lines 9 and 10 at page 12 of the Interpretation Clause, and that the definition of populous place should run thus—" Populous place means any area of not less than 1,000 inhabitants, which by reason of the number and density of its population the Licensing Committee may by order determine to be a populous
  1208
  place." With this change, it would be required that there must be 1,000 inhabitants in a populous place as well as in a town; and it would not be sufficient to find an area—there must be an authority exercising a discretion as to whether the population was dense or sparse. If discretion were exercised as to towns, there was no reason why it should not also be exercised as to populous places.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not mean to argue that the collocation of words in the Interpretation Clause might not be improved, and he thought the alteration suggested by the noble and learned Lord would be an improvement. But the case as regarded towns, and as regarded populous places was not the same. The limit placed upon a populous place was that there should be 1,000 inhabitants, but there was no limit laid down as regarded density and area. He objected to that as being too indefinite; and still further, that no guide whatever was given to the licensing justices as to what constituted density of population. He could not help thinking that some inconvenience would result from the discretion given to the licensing justices in deciding this question, but at the same time he should not recommend his noble Friend behind him to press his Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the moment they descended to figures and limitation of area they involved themselves in further difficulties. He would mention three districts which came under the designation of "populous places," and which it would be exceedingly difficult to define. The first was Petersfield, a Parliamentary borough, the population of which, in 1871, was 1,587, and the area in acres 237, giving slightly over six persons per acre; Stony Stratford, not a Parliamentary borough, but a market town, had a population of 1,973, and an area of 70 acres, giving a density of population of slightly over 28 persons per acre; and Lutterworth, with a population of 2,080, and an area of 1,890 acres, gave a density of population of only slightly over one person per acre. So that in these three places, which were practically of the same character, density of population would give as much difficulty as to define what was a "place," and

  1209
  it would be impossible to lay down any absolute direction in the matter.
  EARL GRANVILLEalso concurred in the difficulty of defining what was a populous place, and said that different licensing justices would take different views of the question, especially as to what was and what was not to be included in a given area.
  EARL FORTESCUEpointed out that the shifting and variable nature of populations, such as by emigration and strikes, might affect the question, and then the magistrates would be required to alter the hours in accordance with the altered state of things.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he saw all the difficulty of the question, and would promise that it should receive careful consideration.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Exemptions as to theatres repealed) agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Exemptions as to beerhouses. Exemptions as to harvesting, &c. Further exemptions as to beer houses).
  EARL NELSONsaid, this clause gave the same power to the magistrates in regard to exemptions as the 26th section of the principal Act gave to the licensing authorities; but it contained words which while they appeared to extend their power did really restrict it. The clause professed to give power to grant exemptions for the accommodation of persons engaged in fishing and harvesting operations. Now, the Act of 1863 already contained power sufficient for this purpose, and as the maxim was inclusio unius exclusio alterius, these words apparently took away the power in other cases. The words were unnecessary, and he proposed to strike them out. He submitted that these exemptions were not required under the new Bill, and proposed to omit the words giving power of exemption in case of harvesting and fishing operations.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from ("house") to ("The") in page 3, line 3.—(The Earl Nelson.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPadmitted that, under the Act of 1872, exemption in these cases certainly existed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  1210
  Words struck out accordingly; clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Power to vary on Sunday afternoon hours of closing premises for sale of intoxicating liquors) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Early-closing licenses) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Remission of duty in case of six-day and early closing license) agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Sale of liquors on Sundays to lodgers by holders of six-day licenses).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, this clause, taken in conjunction with Clause 11, seemed to be very difficult. He therefore proposed to omit Clause 9 altogether, and insert the words contained in it as the first paragraph of Clause 11.
  Clause disagreed to.
  Clause 10 (Penalty for infringing Act as to hours of closing).
  On Motion of the Earl BEATCHAMP, Amendment made in line 28, by leaving out ("in contravention of this Act").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Saving as to bonâ fide travellers and lodgers).
  EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in page 4, line 35, after ("house") to insert—
  (" Provided, that no person holding a six-day licence shall sell any intoxicating liquor on Sunday to any person whatever not lodging in his house").
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRTSTOLmoved to leave out the clause, and insert instead the following clause:—
  "Nothing in this Act or in the principal Act contained shall preclude—(1.) The sale at any time at a railway station of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such station by railroad; or (2) a person licensed to sell any intoxicating liquor to he consumed on the premises from selling such liquor at any time to persons lodging in his house, or to travellers. A person for the purposes of this Act and the principal Act shall not he deemed to he a traveller unless the premises where he demands to he supplied with such liquor are at least three miles distant from the premises where he lodged during the preceding night, such distance to he calculated by the nearest public thoroughfare. Where, in a my proceedings against a licensed person for an offence against the provisions of this Act or the principal Act relating to closing, the defendant fails to prove that the purchaser of the intoxicating liquor was a traveller, but the Court is satisfied that the defendant believed the purchaser to be so, and took reasonable pains to ascertain the fact, the

  1211
  Court shall dismiss the case against the defendant, and may, if they think that the purchaser falsely represented himself to be a traveller, direct proceedings to he taken against the purchaser under the twenty-fifth section of the principal Act."
  EARL BEAUCHAMPdefended the definition of the bonâ fide traveller given in the clause—namely, that no person should be deemed a bonâ fide traveller unless the place where he lodged the preceding night was at least three miles distant from the place where he demanded to be supplied with liquor.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the noble Lords on the Opposition benches, who professed to be such friends of the people, might fairly find fault with this clause. If a man travelled from Manchester to Liverpool and back the same day, arriving in Manchester after the closing hours, he had no club to go to, he had no cellar of his own, and although unmistakably a traveller, he would not be able to get refreshment at the next public-house, as he would not be three miles from where he had slept the previous night.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the definition was, no doubt, objectionable. Under it it might happen that a town traveller, who had driven about for more than 20 miles in the course of the day, could not obtain any refreshment, not being at any time perhaps three miles from home.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 12 (Hours of closing night houses).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYfeared that if the hours of opening and closing refreshment houses were, as they would be under this clause, made the same as those of public-houses, a large number of persons would be subject to inconvenience. Under its provisions, after or before a certain hour, no man not a bonâ fide traveller could get so much as a cup of coffee at a refreshment house. He did not see how that could be said to be a provision in the interest of the public, and it was far more restrictive than anything which was in the Act of 1872.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, it was found necessary to make this alteration in the law because experience had proved that it would be impossible to preserve public order unless some restrictions were put upon refreshment houses.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that if the restriction, although not desirable in itself, was nevertheless necessary for the preservation of law and order, he had not another word to say; but he hoped that they had now got rid of the idea that this was a measure based upon the principle of freedom.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYadmitted the clause was a restrictive one.
  Clause agreed to.
  Record of Convictions and Penalties.
  Clause 13 (Mitigation of penalties).
  LORD COTTESLOEadvised that the clause should be altogether omitted, as it would lead the magistrates to think that Parliament wished them to act with leniency. He did not think that the minimum fine of 20 s. provided for in the principal Act was too much to exact from those who contravened its provisions.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, he could see no reason for altering the existing law. All the evidence showed that the provisions in the principal Act worked well. In those localities where under the old law the magistrates acted with the greatest strictness the fines averaged £2 15 s., whereas in those in which they were indulgent the average fine was only 2s. for the very same class of offences. Therefore, he believed the principle of fixing a minimum penalty was a wise and salutary one.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that the justice of the case in respect to a first offence, which might be of a trivial kind, might be met by enabling magistrate to inflict a reduced fine; but in the event of a second conviction, then the magistrates should not be permitted to make the penalty less than 20 s. He thought the alteration of the law in this respect a wise one.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Record of convictions on licenses).
  LORD COTTESLOEcontended that it was unwise to take from the magistrates the power of endorsing convictions on licences in the way set forth in the Act of 1872. By the present Bill the magistrate could not make that record upon the publican's licence unless he were directed to make it. It would be unfair to the magistrate to have this matter of discretion imposed upon him.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that the existing law on this subject imposed a hard-and-fast line, and the clause in the Bill would leave a proper discretion in the hands of the magistrates. The conviction of the respectable publican would be considered by him as a very serious matter without having it recorded on his licence. In the case of convictions where character was at stake, he considered it objectionable that a hard-and-fast line should prevail.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the record of convictions was introduced into the Act of 1872 for the purpose of preventing brewers being indifferent to the character of their servants who, as tenants, occupied public-houses, and with the view of compelling all owners to exercise due vigilance, so that they should select none but respectable persons to occupy licensed houses. The present clause did not do away with endorsing the conviction on the licence; but while it gave the magistrate discretion, it by no means allowed him to pass the matter sub silentio. He (the Earl of Kimberley) regretted the alteration which the Bill proposed to make in the clause of the Act because he considered the change unnecessary, and therefore mischievous, in the interest of the publican. The existing law said that the conviction should be endorsed on the licence unless the magistrate determined otherwise. Evidently the intention of the Legislature was that there should be endorsement unless where some peculiar circumstances intervened, and it would be hard to press the law to extremity; but the proposed alteration of the clause was a sort of intimation to the magistrates throughout the country not to be too hard on those who were brought before them for breach of the licensing laws. He regarded the clause as a product of the General Election, and he believed it was inserted in the interest of the publican.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, unless he was very much mistaken the elections produced something else besides this clause. The fact was the working of the Act of 1872, in respect to the endorsement of licences on conviction of the holders, was found to be defective. Magistrates had now and then been compelled to endorse licences in cases where they would not have done so if they could have avoided it; and on
  1214
  some occasions when it was not the intention of the magistrates that convictions should be endorsed, an endorsement was subsequently made through misconception on the part of the magistrates' clerk. There was every necessary safe-guard in the clause, and no harm could possibly ensue from its becoming law.
  LORD ABERDAREalluded to the fact that one of the objections now urged against this clause of the Act had been put forward when the Bill in 1872 was before the House of Commons.
  THE MARQTJESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the clause had been strenuously opposed in the House of Peers, but with the assistance of Lord Shaftesbury and the Bishops, the late Government contrived to retain it in the Act.
  Clause amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Record of conviction for adulteration) agreed to.
  (Regulations as to entry on Premises.)
  Clause 16 (Constable to enter on premises for enforcement of Act); and Clause 17 (Search warrant for detection of liquors sold or kept contrary to law) agreed to.
  Occasional Licenses.
  Clause 18 (Occasional license required at fairs and races) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Occasional licences—extension of time for closing); and Clause 20 (Offences on premises with occasional license) agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 21 (Supply of deficiency in quota of borough justices on joint committee); Clause 22 (Provisional grant and confirmation of licenses to new premises); Clause 23 (One license of justices may extend to several excise licenses); Clause 24 (Confirmation of license to sell liquor not to be consumed on the premises not required); Clause 25 (Joint committee to make rules under sect. 43 of principal Act); Clause 26 (Notices of adjourned Brewster sessions and of intention to oppose); and Clause 27 (No appeal to quarter sessions in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Substitution of licensing justices for Commissioners of Inland Revenue as respects certain notices);

  1215
  and Clause 29 (Definition of term "owner ") agreed to, with Amendments.
  On Motion of the Lord ABERDARE, Clause 30 (Temporary continuance of licences forfeited without disqualification of premises) struck out.
  Clause 31 (Saving as to section 9 of the principal Act) agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Person not to be liable for supplying liquor to private friends without charge).
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, there was no clause in the Bill which should be more definite and free from ambiguity than this.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD WHARNCLIFFEmoved to insert after Clause 32, the following:—
  "An additional retail licence to sell beer for consumption off the premises may be granted at any special Sessions for licensing purposes to the holder of a strong beer dealer's licence, in the same manner, and subject to the same conditions in and subject to which it might be granted at any general licensing meeting."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Definitions and Repeal.
  Clause 33 (Definitions).
  LORD CHELMSFORDasked whether instead of "the following expressions have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them," the clause ought not to read," shall have the meanings hereinafter respectively assigned to them? "
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the modern practice in drafting Bills was never to use the future, but always the present tense.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHmoved the omission of the Proviso at line 5—
  "Provided that no urban sanitary district, whether including such adjoining houses or not, shall be deemed to be a town, unless it contains one thousand inhabitants."
  He did not object to the mode of defining populous places, but he thought the rule as to 1,000 inhabitants was objectionable, and his attention had been drawn to the fact as likely to prejudice the interests of a great number of small places. He knew that in many parts of the country, and especially in Wiltshire, there were a great number of small places which were to all intents and purposes towns, but they were not in
  1216
  the neighbourhood of larger towns, and they had not the benefit of the privileges that would accrue to them if they ranked as towns. Yet they had a number of shops, and at times they enjoyed a considerable traffic. They were frequented by farmers and others who came to them from a distance, and that was of all others the class that deserved to be considered in the amount of accommodation of this kind they were to enjoy. It was not a matter of great importance perhaps, but he could assure their Lordships that the exclusion of these places from the privileges of towns would be a cause of very great inconvenience and annoyance to a large and respectable class of persons. If the Proviso were left out, the clause would still be sufficiently guarded by the definition of "the urban sanitary district," and also by the discretion which was to be left to the magistrates.
  Amendment moved, in page 12, line 5, to leave out from ("Provided") to ("inhabitants"), in line 8.—(The Marquess of Bath.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was sorry he could not assent to the Amendment of his noble Friend. Table 7 of the Census of 1871 would show the consequences of the passing of the Amendment. There was a very large number of urban sanitary districts with a very limited population, and the Local Government Board had laid down a rule that they would not in future constitute a local board at any place of less than 2,000 inhabitants. There was one at present which had a population of only 60, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Proviso as it stood. If a place could show that it had 1,000 inhabitants, it would have a claim to come under the Act.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that these details were too minute for their Lordships to go into.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that there should be a periodical revision of places determined as "populous," so that omissions should be corrected, and places struck out where the population had fallen below the limit.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that there was much in the suggestion that was worthy of consideration.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to strike out the first lines of sub-section 5, and insert—
  "At a meeting especially convened for that purpose in manner provided by any regulations in that behalf, or in default of such regulations by the clerk of the peace as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and not later than the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and seventy four."
  That would give time to the magistrate to take whatever steps were necessary for their determining certain places to be populous, while it would not prevent their taking them at an earlier period if it were possible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Another Amendment made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Repeal).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved, in page 13, line 4, after ("town") to insert ("for the purposes of the provisions with respect to closing ").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule.
  On Question? that the Schedule stand part of the Bill,
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKmoved an Amendment to the Schedule defining the metropolitan district, so as to include within it the parish of West Ham, and presented a Petition in favour of that proposition from the inhabitants of that parish. The Petition which was signed by magistrates and all classes of the inhabitants, stated that at the last Census the population was 62,000, since which time it had greatly increased; that out of that number there were at least 29,000 operatives who were employed at such times that if this Bill passed they would be precluded from obtaining any refreshment. Under the Act of 1872 the magistrates fixed the hour of opening at West Ham at 5 o'clock in the morning, and the result of the passing of this Bill would be to cut off one hour in the morning and one hour and a-half at night—thus reducing the time by two hours and a-half per day. The Petition included a great many details with which he did not think it necessary to trouble their Lordships. There were, it appeared, 10
  1218
  railway stations at West Ham, besides the workshops of the Great Eastern Railway, employing some 2,000 workmen. There was a very considerable traffic passing through the parish before the hour of 6 in the morning and after 11 at night, and if the licensed houses were not included in the metropolitan area it would be a great hardship on those persons so engaged. He believed the Members of Parliament locally interested were in favour of West Ham being included in the Metropolitan District for the purposes of this Act. These were substantial reasons which were given by the Petitioners for the prayer of their Petition being granted, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would approve of the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved, in line 20, after ("Charing Cross") to insert ("together with the parish of West Ham in the county of Essex.")—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTERopposed the Amendment. West Ham, or Stratford, as it was more familiarly known, was in reality no part of London in the sense in which Hackney, for instance, was a part of it. The Amendment would lead their Lordships to suppose that there were continuous lines of houses from London to Stratford; but if they travelled there by railway they would find there was a considerable vacant space between the two places, which were separated by the river Lee, forming the boundary between Middlesex and Essex. Not only was West Ham not locally a part of London, but it was not metropolitan in the habits of its people, and in the privileges and advantages which it enjoyed; and it had been with considerable dismay that he believed the better and larger number of the inhabitants found this attempt made to thrust upon them what they considered the metropolitan disadvantages as regarded the hours of opening and closing public-houses. He was the very last person to neglect or despise an appeal from the working men of Stratford. They were a body who ought to be considered. It was at a large and crowded meeting of the workmen of that place that resolutions were passed unanimously entreating that museums and public places might not be opened on Sundays. If their

  1219
  Lordships were to believe what were the feelings of the inhabitants of West Ham with regard to this proposition, they must respect a Petition signed by 6,000 persons, and presented against this very proposal; they must judge by the memorial of the Local Board, by that of the Guardians of the Poor, and by one from the magistrates, all entreating that they might not enjoy the so-called privilege which it was now proposed to offer them. He appealed to their Lordships not to consent to the Amendment, to the spirit of which the inhabitants themselves were so strongly opposed.
  LORD CAPLTNGFORDprotested against what he called the extraordinary Amendment of the noble Earl. The Schedule defined the Metropolis by certain terms, and then the Amendment proposed to pick out a single parish which happened to lie outside the boundary so defined, and which was entirely inconsistent with that definition, and to tack it on to the Metropolis. Why the parish of West Ham should be singled out for this specific purpose in order to have its drinking-houses increased he could not understand, and he hoped their Lordships would adhere to what took place in the other House, and refuse to accede to this exceptional legislation. Almost every authority within the parish had protested against the proposed change. The only thing which could have encouraged the noble Earl to make this proposition must have been the deputation which was arranged by the licensed victuallers within the last few days, and who waited upon the President of the Council to urge the claims of this parish upon the noble Duke's attention. He hoped their Lordships would not for a moment assent to the proposition.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the case of West Ham was a very peculiar one. There was no doubt it was beyond the outskirts of London; but from time to time they might look forward to those outlying places becoming part and parcel of the Metropolis, and what he was prepared to do was to amend the Schedule by the addition of the words "for the time being," after the word "place"—so that, in the case of West Ham and parishes similarly situated, the words applicable to the Metropolitan District would come in force, and they might fairly claim the hours of extension as
  1220
  applied to London. The Schedule, as amended, would read:—
  "The city of London or the liberties thereof, or any parish or place for the time being subject to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or within the area contained within a circle the radius of which is four miles from Charing-cross."
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, there was no doubt that persons possessed of a certain amount of property approved of restrictions being placed upon public-houses, because for the most part they themselves belonged to clubs, where they could repair at any hour of the night or morning and get what they required, and if they went home they had cellars which were well-stocked with wine, spirits, or beer. It was therefore a matter of indifference to them what hours public-houses were permitted to keep open. He would like to ask them whether it was proposed to restrict the hour at which their clubs were to keep open in the same way as public-houses, they would so readily acquiesce in the proposition. With this observation he was content to leave the matter, hoping however there would be no desire to keep any district from the operation of the Bill that could be fairly included within its provisions. The meetings of the School Board and of the Board of Guardians which had petitioned against his proposal had been very thinly attended, and did not represent the general feeling of the inhabitants. The Bill as it stood would deprive them of an entire hour. They now opened at five o'clock in the morning, but after the passing of the Bill they would not be able to open until 6 o'clock.
  LORD LAWRENCEopposed the Amendment.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  On Motion of the Earl BEAUCHAMP, Amendment made, in line 17, by inserting ("for the time being") after ("place").
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to he printed, as amended. (No. 160.)

  FOYLE COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the better management and regulation of Foyle College in the city and county of Londonderry, and for vesting in the Governing Body of such College the present school-house and premises belonging to such College, and for vesting the right of appointment of Head Master of such College in the Bishop of Derry and Raphoe and the Governor of the Honourable the Irish Society—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read Ia. (No. 159.)
  House adjourned at half past Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock