COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 20 June 1876)

THE DUKE OFARGYLL
said, that while believing that on the whole the Bill was a decided improvement on the licensing system of Scotland, still he had an insuperable objection to this clause, which had been imported into the Bill at a late stage in the other House. They all knew the extreme difficulty experienced by the Government in dealing with the licensing system, and especially in regard to public-houses in London, and it was extremely creditable to the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill in the other House (Dr. Cameron) that although only a private Member he should have succeeded in getting the Bill through; and therefore he thought that nothing should be done to impede the efforts of the Government or of the promoters in dealing with the subject effectually; but that he thought was what this clause did, for its effects would be to create new vested interests, and to that extent hamper the action of the Legislature. This view of the case was shown by the wording of the clause— Any person intending to apply for a certificate in respect to any premises about to be constructed, rebuilt, added to, or altered, or in course of construction, rebuilding-, or alteration, for the purpose of being used for the sale of excisable liquors may apply to the justices or magistrates, as the case may be, and to the county licensing committee or joint committee for the burgh, as the case may be, for the grant and confirmation of a provisional certificate in 103 respect of such premises. Such application shall be accompanied with a certificate as to the applicant's character and qualification, signed by a justice of the peace for the county or a magistrate of the burgh, as the case may be. And the justices or magistrates, and the county licensing committee or joint committee for the burgh, as the case may be, if satisfied with the plans submitted to them of such premises, and that if such premises had been actually constructed in accordance with such plans they would, on application, have granted and confirmed such a certificate in respect thereof, and that it is meet and convenient that such certificate should be granted, may grant and confirm a provisional Certificates in respect thereof in, or as nearly as may be, in the terms of Schedule B annexed to this Act. The effect of this enactment would, it appeared to him, be this—on the tenant applying for a certificate, the owner of the House would say that he had presented plans to the licensing justices, and that it was on the face of the certificate that the money was laid out; and that, therefore, he had the right subsequently to obtain the licence, because he could contend that he had laid out the money on the faith of its being granted. It would be thought a great hardship upon a man who had expended some £5,000 or £10,000 upon the premises to refuse him the licence, and the consequence would be that they would have to give it to every subsequent tenant. The effect all over Scotland would be to impair the power of the magistrates to refuse licences to succeeding tenants. When the Bill was passing through the House of Commons it attracted so little notice that he believed hardly anything had been heard of it in Scotland: but since public attention had been roused, he had had Petitions sent to him from a great many public bodies against this clause, and amongst others a Petition from no less important a body than the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, representing a very large constituency, and also from the justices of the county of Lanarkshire, praying that it might not be allowed to pass. Under these circumstances, and having found few Members either in that House or the House of Commons who really approved of it, he trusted his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill would consent to omit it.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he did not think this clause tended to create new in- 104 terests and so to impede the action of the magistrates, because as he understood the practice already existed in Scotland, and that at present persons who were about to construct public-houses in the town of Edinburgh were allowed to lay before the magistrates the plans of the proposed buildings or alterations. He thought the magistrates were much more likely to refuse the licence when the application and plans were first submitted to them, as then no expense had been incurred, than they were to refuse subsequent applications, when they had once sanctioned them. He trusted the noble Duke would not persist in his opposition to the clause.

§ THE EARL OF ABERDEEN
said, that a few days ago he had presented a numerously signed Petition against this clause.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
thought the effect of the clause would be to licence the House instead of the occupier, and this he thought was very undesirable. He quite agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that the working of the clause would be to make it difficult for the magistrates to refuse the licence to the subsequent applicants. He hoped his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) would give way.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that after what had fallen from his noble Friend and the noble Duke opposite, he trusted the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) would withdraw the clause. It seemed to have no reference to the main part of the Bill, which he thought a useful measure. His noble Friend had proved too much, because he said that the plan embodied in the clause was already adopted in Scotland, and if so the clause was unnecessary. Whether that were so or not, he believed that the Bill would be more useful without the clause than with it.