REPORT. (Hansard, 15 March 1883)

§ LORD BRAMWELL
said, he rose for the purpose of calling their Lordships' attention to one or two obvious defects which existed in the provisions of the Bill. For instance, in one of the clauses the prohibition extended to every house for the sale of spirituous or fermented liquors, "or other house of entertainment." This, as he understood, would even include coffee-taverns—an effect which he imagined was not contemplated by the promoters of the Bill. Again, by the prohibition of payment of wages in public-houses, a public-house keeper would be prevented from paying his own servants in his own public- 518 house; besides which, a beershop keeper, who might himself be in the employ of another person, could not receive his earnings on his own premises. It might also include the case of a labourer laid up with illness in a country public-house. He would suggest that it might be advisable that justices of the peace should have power to overrule the operation of this provision in certain cases. He really could not help thinking that their Lordships had had very imperfect material on which to base this change in legislation. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill (Earl Stanhope) seemed to have simply applied to this matter the law passed in respect of miners, and to have concluded that what was good for miners was good for all mankind.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, that the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken (Lord Bramwell), while objecting to some of the provisions of the Bill, had not brought forward any counter proposal. The words quoted were intended to apply to places attached to public-houses, and not to coffee-taverns; and it was certainly not contemplated that a publican should be prevented from paying his own servants. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Report, and allow the Bill to go to the other House, where, no doubt, it would receive revision in Committee, and possibly some of the noble Lord's objections might be removed, if they were there thought to be really valid defects.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it would not be creditable to their Lordships' House to send a Bill to the Commons on the chance of its being amended there. He thought the words referred to must have got into the wrong place. The clause clearly could not remain in its present form, and he would therefore move, as an Amendment, the omission of the words "or other house of entertainment," in order that wages might be allowed to be paid in a temperance house.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, he cordially approved of the Amendment, and hoped it would be agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUBY
said, that, in his opinion, the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) deserved careful consideration. He (the Marquess of Salisbury), as he had previously stated, could not approve of the principle of the Bill, and he therefore hoped the Amendment before their Lordships would be accepted, for the purview of the Bill ought not to be extended beyond what was absolutely necessary.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he would accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he would further point out the inconvenience arising from a sick workman lodging in a public-house, or of one who might be taken ill therein, being prevented by the Bill from receiving his wages therein. Some alteration ought to be made in the Bill in order to remove this objection.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, that under the Bill as it stood the noble Earl himself could not receive his official pay, if he happened to be staying at the time it was due at an hotel.

§ EARL STANHOPE
promised to consider the point suggested by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), and to endeavour to meet it on the third reading, though it would be very difficult to find words which would have the effect desired.