§ Moved, "That the Report of the Amendments be now received."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD DENMAN, in moving that the Report be received that day three months, said, that he hoped that in the present uncertainty of the elements of the Bill, their Lordships would not assent to the measure. In Haddington the Justices declined to interfere, thinking it too late, but the Sheriff considered that early closing would increase the number of shebeens, whilst in the same county, Dunbar sent a petition against the Bill quieta non novere was a safe motto, and if change were to begin, the Forbes McKenzie Act might be attacked. He believed that the only effect of the Bill would be to unsettle everything, and to settle nothing.
§ Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")— (The Lord Denman.)
§ [The Amendment, not being seconded, was not put.]
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Amendments reported (according to order).
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in moving an Amendment to Clause 9, to add to the end of clause, "and shall not apply to any burgh, town, or populous town containing fifty thousand inhabitants and upwards," said, he considered his proposal so reasonable and rational, that he did not think it necessary to trouble 227 their Lordships with many reasons in favour of it. Before, however, be entered into consideration of the Amendment, he desired to refer to a remark which fell from the noble Duke, whom he did not then see in his place (the Duke of Argyll) the other evening when he expressed himself rather in favour of this Bill. On that occasion the noble Duke had not accurately stated the views he (the Earl of Wemyss) took of the question. The noble Duke said he could understand his (Earl Wemyss') objections to the measure, because he took his stand on broad and intelligent principles, and the way in which he defined those principles was this—that he (Earl Wemyss) on licensing questions always went on the broad lines that they were matters of police, and should only be dealt with by the police in relation to crime. That, however, was not his view of the question. He went a great deal further than merely thinking that when a drunkard was in the street with a crowd about him he was a nuisance to everybody, and therefore it was the duty of the police to take cognizance of the matter; because he thought also that it was their duty to look after the publicans, if, as they were told, they were in the habit of sending drunken men into the streets. Having said that much, he would express his regret that the Government had not seen their way to dealing with this question in a more broad and complete manner. It might be desirable that public-houses in Scotland should be closed at a more regular hour; but, that was a question which could be more properly dealt with in the large and comprehensive measure of local government which they were promised. The Government had not done that, and therefore they had to be thankful for small mercies, and he thanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) for what he had done in the way of mitigating the effects of this Bill. When the measure came up to their Lordships' House, it made this alteration in the closing of public-houses, that whereas at present 11 o'clock was the time for closing, with a discretionary power of a certain character in the hands of magistrates, this Bill proposed that the closing should take place an hour earlier—namely, at 10 o'clock, there being no discretionary power left to the licensing authority. A very serious question of 228 the liberty of the subject was involved in this, it was to his mind exceedingly hard that the sober many should be put to very great inconvenience for the sake of a drunken few. He believed that they had been told that the measure did not curtail the liberty of the subject; but, as introduced by his noble Friend, the measure was to apply without any exception to all parts of Scotland—alike to town and country. He contended that the Bill, if it were to be applied oven with a discretionary power to the licensing authorities to all parts of Scotland—town and country alike—would not work well. Its provisions would be found almost intolerable in many country districts, and they would be found intolerable in their operation in the large towns, where the means of amusement, the habits, customs, and character of the people were totally different. What he proposed had already been admitted in their legislation—it was admitted in a Bill, in every Bill which had been introduced, whether optional or prohibitory, as regarded England, because that great Metropolis had always been exempted from the legislation. One would suppose that if the principle which was advocated was sound, it would be equally sound in its application to London—in one place just as well as in another. Why was it, then, that the Metropolis was always exempted from legislation of this kind? He saw his noble and learned Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) present, and his own impression was that this kind of exceptional legislation has been admitted also in the case of Ireland, and that there were certain large towns to which the Sunday Closing Act did not extend. It certainly did not apply to Dublin and other large towns, and he considered that the same principle which he desired by his Amendment to carry out should be applied to Scotland. His proposal was to exempt all large towns with 50,000 inhabitants from the discretionary powers that were given to the Justices, and to leave the law as it at present stood. That discretionary power had been tried in England already, under the Bill of 1872, brought in by Mr. Bruce, and it had been found that it would not work, and the Act fell through after two or three years. It was found not to work well in Liverpool and the other large towns, where the measure caused so much 229 irritation and ill-will that the Act was allowed to drop. There was also this further evil which he would point out, and it was upon matters of this kind that he would invite their Lordships' special attention, as they could not be lost sight of in considering the question. It was a fact that these restrictions encouraged illicit drinking, and it was impossible to exaggerate the many evils which were caused by over-restrictive legislation of this kind. The Bill was brought in by Dr. Cameron, Member for the College Division of Glasgow, and he (the Earl of Wemyss) found that the hon. Member had reprinted from one of the Glasgow papers his reason for legislation of this kind; but if his pamphlet set forth all the advantages of the measure, he thought that practically he had reproduced the worst arguments he could have found, for according to the hon. Gentleman, there was in Glasgow a large system of illicit drinking, commonly called shebeening. Now, if there was one place in the world which should be the paradise of water drinkers, it should be the State of Maine in America. There all drinking of alcoholic drinks was prohibited absolutely, and with what result? Why, if they took the test of crime, of madness, of drunkenness, and he was told also of Divorce Court cases, the State of Maine, in proportion to its population, as far as he understood, was far ahead of any other State in America. Not only that, but in regard to illicit drinking there were so many shebeens and drinking clubs in Maine, that if there was the same proportion in respect to population as existed there in Glasgow they would have something like 4,000 shebeens in Glasgow and 2,000 drinking clubs. He thought that with those facts before them, he had said sufficient in support of his Amendment.
§ Moved, in Clause 9, page 3, line 38, after ("1882") to insert, ("and shall not apply to any burgh, town, or populous place containing fifty thousand inhabitants and upwards").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he thought it would be unfortunate if the House should agree to the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss). The noble Earl had given them an argument in his speech which would go 230 to show that the closing of public-houses altogether might be very undesirable, and which might have been called intolerable. The noble Earl had quoted the case of the State of Maine; but, after all, this Bill with the Amendment already adopted was perfectly free from any of the objections pointed, out by the noble Earl with regard to the inconvenience which might arise in large towns. No doubt in large towns there was a provision with respect to bonâ fide travellers. Inconvenience might, however, still arise in the case of travellers; but he apprehended their case would be met by the rail way station refreshment-rooms, which were under special regulations licensed by the authorities for such purposes. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) had said that it was very hard that the sober majority should suffer for the minority who exceeded. But the sober majority themselves called for some such measure as this. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) had ascertained that in some of the large towns of Scotland, and in a certain one with which he was acquainted, there was a very large preponderance of public opinion in favour of granting this power of restriction as in the Bill. Of course, it was also to be considered that there was a class of persons who would be affected by this Bill who were not directly referred to, though perhaps it was not their Lordships' place to allude to them. He meant the employés of the licensed victuallers. Parliament had already sanctioned legislation in regard to the hours of labour of certain persons; and, therefore, this would be no new precedent, for it was obvious that they were a particular class. He should say, in conclusion, that he did most decidedly come to the opinion that there was a very large preponderance of public opinion in the principal large towns of Scotland in favour of the Bill, so far as could be gathered from the comments made thus far.
§ LORD BRAMWELLsaid, that when he was speaking on a Scotch Bill the other evening the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Camperdown) had been unkind enough to remind him that he (Lord Bramwell) was not a Scotchman. He was conscious of that defect, but he now desired to say a word on this subject; and really if English- 231 men might not talk about Scotch affairs, it suggested a consequence he was sure their Lordships would object to. What struck him on reading this Bill was this—Why, if 10 o'clock was right, as the noble Earl would seem to make it appear by the Bill, is 11 wrong? Well, it might be asked, why, if 11 o'clock is right, should 12 o'clock be wrong? He would make the same answer in both cases—namely, that they had got 11 o'clock, and if they wanted to alter it to either 12 or 10, they ought to give a reason for the alteration. But no reason had been given. The noble Earl had been good enough to take up the Bill. He would not suspect him (Lord Bramwell) of saying anything disrespectful of him, but he did think the Bill was a peddling piece of legislation. Why meddle with the hour now fixed? At present, 11 o'clock was the hour, and people had suited their habits to it. He did not suppose that all sober people in Scotland went to bed at 10 o'clock. He supposed there were large towns in Scotland in which people coming from theatres and other places would like to have a glass of beer, and they had suited themselves to the law as it stood. But, all at once, was this change proposed to be put upon them without any reason. It was said that the sober majority desired this legislation; but he should like to know what the sober majority actually was. What did it mean? If the sober majority are people who thought all drinking was wrong, then he should protest against their interfering with him in his opinion, who did not think it was wrong. Let those people who thought there was no harm in a glass of beer have their glass of beer. He really submitted that this was a peddling piece of legislation interfering with the existing state of the law without any reason being given in support of it.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he would be the last to prevent the noble and learned Lord taking part in any discussion regarding Scotland; but when another Scotch measure was being discussed the other day, the noble and learned Lord said he could not understand it, and he had replied that, being an Englishman, he was not acquainted with the agricultural customs of Scotland, one of which was to engage agricultural labourers by the year. In 232 spite, however, of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, he must ask their Lordships not to accept the Amendment, and if it was pressed, he must resist it as far as he could. He would ask their Lordships to remember exactly the position in which this Bill stood. When the measure entered their Lordship's House, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) objected to the Bill on the ground that it fixed the hour of closing public-houses for 10 o'clock in the evening. He (the Earl of Camperdown) would admit that, at once, and without pressure of any kind, he saw the objection to the Bill in that form, and said he would endeavour to design a compromise or an arrangement which he thought would be more satisfactory to the opponents of the Bill. He introduced that arrangement; it was now in the Bill, and it left to the Licensing Authorities power to direct that public-houses in their districts should be closed at any hour between 10 and 11 o'clock. If he had known at that time that this Amendment was to be brought forward, he was bound to say that he would not have made any alteration in the Bill. He took the line he did in consequence of what was said by the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cross), who intimated that in large towns he would prefer a later hour of closing. No other Amendment was placed upon the Paper when the Bill went into Committee. He (the Earl of Camperdown) therefore placed his Amendment on the Paper as to the discretionary power, and, as he said, no other Amendment was placed there. He was bound to say that if the present Amendment (that of the Earl of Wemyss) had been then placed on the Paper, he would at once have withdrawn his own. If, therefore, the House accepted the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss) he would have to ask their Lordships to strike his own Amendment out of the Bill, because the change he sought to have made in the Bill was one he was prepared to support; but further than which he was not prepared to go. He asked their Lordships to consider what was the effect of the Amendment now proposed. The Bill as it stood gave to all Licensing Authorities a discretionary power as to the hours of closing public-houses within 233 their district between 10 and 11 o'clock; but now the noble Earl proposed to say that in certain big towns they were to have no discretion. That was to say, that a discretion was to be given to Licensing Authorities in the country districts, or in other districts which were not populous; but when they entered the big towns, Parliament said that they should fix the hour of closing, and it would not be earlier than 11 o'clock. That was the effect of the Amendment of his noble Friend; he said Parliament should interfere with the Licensing Authority in big towns, but should not interfere everywhere else. He (the Earl of Camperdown) submitted that that was the worst possible proposal that could be made. Curely the Licensing Authorities would not shut up the houses over which they had jurisdiction, unless they were of opinion that it was the wish of the people that they should be shut. They were not likely, for instance, to shut up licensed houses in Glasgow, unless they had public opinion in their favour. Why should they not trust the Licensing Authorities in Glasgow, if they were going to trust them elsewhere? He told their Lordships that the moment they entered into this question of populous places they were in a position of very great difficulty. His noble Friend also instanced to their Lordships the case of the Sunday Closing Bill in Ireland; but the case which he put could have no bearing at all upon Scotland, because in Ireland there was no discretion at all given to the Licensing Authority with regard to the hour of closing in Ireland out of Dublin. Did not his noble Friend see that his comparison fell to the ground entirely? In Scotland the Bill did not fix an hour, but left it to the discretion of the justices to do so. He asked the House to bear in mind that that arrangement was almost, to a certainty, the arrangement which they would make at no distant day; and if they created this special exemption in favour of a few big towns, they would do that which at no distant time they would have to withdraw. An Amendment of this sort was proposed in the House of Commons, and it was rejected by a very large majority, and the reason why it was rejected was the difficulty of dealing with Glasgow—a difficulty which would arise out of the Amendment now proposed. There were close to Glas- 234 gow a number of smaller towns, one of which was Partick. If the Licensing Authority for Partick chose to select an earlier hour than 11 o'clock they would be closed earlier than the Glasgow houses, which would remain open to 11 o'clock. That was only one instance of the many difficulties which would have to be met. If they were going to give a discretionary power to Licensing Authorities, they must give it to all, or to none of them; if they trusted none of them, they would throw out the Bill; but if they did not take that coarse he asked their Lordships not to weaken and cut down the Bill in the way they were asked to do. Under these circumstances he asked their Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)said, that with reference to the last point which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown), he thought that a defect in the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) was, that it did not state more distinctly what towns he intended excluding; but, nevertheless, he (the Marquess of Lothian) thought that the Amendment should distinctly be supported. He was going to propose to his noble Friend, in order to meet the difficulty, that in the event of his Amendment being carried, he should introduce a Schedule which would name all the burghs round Glasgow—he thought they were nine in number—as places which should be the same in regard to the hours of closing as the city of Glasgow itself. He was surprised to hear the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) say that this difficulty arose out of the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). The noble Earl had pointed out the anomalous state of matters which would arise under the Amendment of his noble Friend—that public-houses would be open till 11 in Glasgow, and would be shut at an earlier hour in Partick and the other burghs which surrounded Glasgow; but if the Bill were carried as it now stood, there was nothing to prevent the Licensing Authorities in Glasgow keeping the public-houses open till 11 o'clock, and some of the neighbouring burghs shutting at 10, others at 11, and others at some time between 10 and 11 o'clock. That very difficulty 235 would be sure to arise under the Bill as it now stood; and he hoped that if the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches were carried, he would consent to a Schedule being introduced. With reference to the general question, he stated to the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) when he introduced his Amendment, that he accepted that Amendment, but on the understanding that he should like to vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), and he would take the opportunity of saying that he was sorry the noble Earl did not introduce his Amendment in the Committee stage; because it placed them in rather an awkward position, as the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had stated that if the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches were carried, he (the Earl of Camperdown) would withdraw the Amendment he carried in Committee, and then the Bill would pass as it originally came to that House, with the addition of the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), so that all public-houses in Scotland would be closed at 10 o'clock, except those in places which had a population of over 50,000. He must confess that he was in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches; but he further thought that there were various parts of Scotland where the discretion of the Licensing Authorities as to places which had not a population of over 50,000 would be valuable. In the watering places in the West of Scotland in the summer, it would be a great convenience that the public-houses should be kept open for the convenience of visitors after 10 o'clock. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Camperdown) withdrew the Amendment which he carried in Committee, that would be impossible, and he hoped he would reconsider his determination to withdraw it. He (the Marquess of Lothian) thought that Scotland should be placed on the same footing as England in regard to the matter—that is to say, that in England all populous places were exempted from the time limit, and public-houses were open till 11, and he thought Scotland should be placed, so far as possible, in the same position. As to what the noble Earl had said about trusting the Licensing Authorities, the position was different in large towns 236 from what it was in the country, and he did not think it implied any want of confidence in the Licensing Authorities to make this exception in favour of the large towns. He thought there might be a difficulty as to what was called a populous place—namely, as to whether the limit should be 30,000–20,000 or 30,000; but as the noble Earl had placed the limit at 50,000, he was not disposed to quarrel with that, and was prepared to support the Amendment.
§ On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 19; Not-Contents 10: Majority 9,
§ Resolved in the affirmative.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNgave Notice that at the third reading he would move to omit the Amendment which was inserted in Committee giving discretion to the Licensing Authorities.
§ Bill to be read 3ª on Monday next.