COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 March 1883)

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,
in rising to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, said, that he trusted in doing so he should have the support of those noble Lords who were opposed to the Bill, as well as of those who were in favour of it, because no one could desire to see the law turned into a farce and a mockery, as it was under the present interpretation of the law. There was a clause in the Licensing Act of 1874 which said that a person to be a bonâ fide traveller must be at least three miles distant from the place where he lodged on the previous night; and, unfortunately, the wording of that clause had led to a great deal of confusion. It had led the magistrates to decide that anybody who was three miles away from the place where he slept the previous night was a bonâ fide traveller, and a great deal of abuse had followed. The Committee of the House of Lords, which inquired into the subject of Intemperance, had recommended on that question that it should be made clear by law that, even if a person was proved to be three miles away from his residence, it still rested with the magistrate to decide whether he was a banâ fide traveller who should be supplied with liquor. He thought that had been provided for in the first part of his Amendment. A man could hardly say that, because he happened to be three miles away from the place where he slept the previous night, therefore he was a bonâ fide traveller, in the sense that he was entitled to be served with liquor in prohibited hours. Yet advantage was taken of that interpre- 771 tation of the law; and the result was a great amount of demoralization, because people went out just far enough to be beyond the three miles' limit, and were able to indulge in any amount of drinking. It was more than ever necessary to consider the question now, because the Bill before the House proposed to extend the Sunday closing to the five large towns in Ireland which had hitherto been exempted. Upon the policy of the Bill he would say nothing; but he did not wish that to remain in it which would make the Act a mockery and a delusion. If the law was left as at present, they would simply render the suburban districts of the large towns in Ireland uninhabitable, because the roughs would turn out just the distance required to enable them to get drink, and would then indulge to their heart's content. He thought it was quite obvious that it was necessary to reconsider the question, and he therefore trusted the Government would accept his Amendment.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
said, if he attempted to go into the question of amending the law as to the bonâ fide traveller, he should have a good deal of comment to make on the Amendment of the noble Earl, and especially as to the distance he named—20 miles—as the substitute for the three miles now requisite before a man was entitled to be considered a bonâ fide traveller. He must say it was an extraordinary suggestion, which went far beyond any he had ever heard made for the reform of this law. In fact, he must decline on the present occasion, and in connection with that Bill, to go into the question of amending the law as to the bonâ fide traveller in Ireland. First of all, because the Irish Government were convinced—and they had taken great pains, by all the means which were at their disposal, to arrive at the truth in the matter—that such a statement of the abuse of the 772 law, as it at present stood, as they had just heard from the noble Earl was very much exaggerated. They were convinced that, though there was, no doubt, a good deal of abuse of the privilege and of evasion of the law, yet it was not anything like so serious as the noble Earl seemed to think, and that it by no means reduced the working of the Act to what the noble Earl had called a "mockery." He (Lord Carlingford) believed the existing Act had worked very well on the whole, although it might be said that magistrates were very apt to deal in a lax way with infringements of it. He would allow that the magistrates had not always understood the meaning and intention of the bonâ fide traveller clause. If they had, they would be able to do a great deal more than they were in the habit of doing to prevent the abuse of it. The truth was that the magistrate simply had to consider whether the person before him had been in the common sense of the word a "traveller" or not, whether he had actually been travelling, which was a very different thing from a man being simply three miles away from his home. The limitation of the three miles simply came in as a condition of the Act. The Act said that at all events, whatever the other circumstances of the case might be, no man was to be considered a traveller who had not gone a distance of at least three miles from the place where he slept; but the mere fact of going three miles did not constitute him a traveller within the meaning of the Act. His main reason for not being able to accept the Amendment was that he was sure the Bill would run very great peril in "another place" if it was accepted, and it would be extremely unwise to attempt to weight the Bill with legislation of that kind. He should also like to point out that the question of the bonâ fide traveller was not necessarily connected with Sunday closing at all, as the privileges of the bonâ fide traveller were universal. The traveller was entitled to his liquor at any hour of the day or night; but, as he had said, his main reason for refusing the Amendment was that it would endanger the progress of the measure. If the noble Earl wished to see the Bill become law—

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
No; I do not.

§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)
Well, that explained the motive of the noble Earl. He (Lord Carling-ford) thought the Amendment came from a friend and not from an enemy; but anyone who wished to see the Bill become law would not insist on the Amendment.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
said, he was sorry the question had not been thoroughly investigated. It was perfectly true that there might have been some exaggeration in regard to the extent to which the Act had been abused up to the present time; but they must remember that the question now raised had acquired a new importance from the fact that the operation of the Act was now to be very considerably extended. Five large towns in Ireland, which had hitherto been exempt, were to be included, and there could be no doubt that the law would have the effect of inducing the Sunday migration of a great portion of the population of those towns to districts in which they would be able to obtain a liberal supply of drink. There would be a temperate zone round each town, and further out what might be called an intemperate zone.

§ LORD FITZGERALD
said, he trusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) would not press his Amendment, as he (Lord Fitzgerald) thought it was unnecessary. It would be better, in his opinion, to strike out the exemption clauses altogether, which, no doubt, had led to a considerable amount of abuse, than to adopt the Amendment. The bonâ fide traveller question had always been one of great difficulty; and down to the Act of 1874 he could not find that there was any definition of what a bonâ fide traveller was. The present law in Ireland was that in order to get drink as a bonâ fide traveller a man must prove two things—first of all, that he was a bonâ fide traveller; and, secondly, that he was at least three miles from the place where he last lodged. But it did not at all follow that because he was three miles from his lodging he was a bonâ fide traveller. There had been a very lax administration of the law; but the fault was not in the law, but in its administration; and if the magistrates would only see that the two things were properly proved, there would little abuse. He would rather support his noble Friend in an Amendment to 774 I strike out the exemption altogether, than support him in an Amendment that said that unless a man went 20 miles, even if he was a bonâ fide traveller, he was to get no refreshment. He would appeal to the noble Earl to show his usual discretion by not pressing the Amendment, which, besides being unworkable, would, if carried, endanger the progress of the Bill in "another place."

THE EARL OF BELMORE
said, he would join in the appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown) not to press his Amendment. He quite agreed with the noble Lord who last spoke (Lord Fitzgerald), that the failure to carry out the law was due to the magistrates, and not to the law itself. He would suggest that the Lord Lieutenant should order a Circular to be sent round to the magistrates calling attention to the correct interpretation of the law, and that persons should be obliged to prove that they were bonâ fide travellers, and not that it should be taken for granted, if they had come three miles from home to the public-house. That might be a useful thing to do, as affording a way out of the difficulty; but he thought the passage of the Bill ought not to be imperilled by pressing such an Amendment as the one before the Committee.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN
said, he would admit that the law was administered in a very lax manner, and he merely wished to make the matter plain by inserting the provision of 20 miles in his Amendment. He would, however, reduce the number of miles from 20 to seven. He hoped the Government would agree to the proposal, and that they would allow a definition of bonâ fide traveller to be put in the Bill.