SECOND READING.

HL Deb 24 March 1890 vol 342 cc1642-63

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

* EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I did not intend to trouble your Lordships at any length in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, but the noble and learned Lord Bramwell was good enough to inform me this morning that it was his, intention to move the rejection of the Bill, and, therefore, I shall be obliged to trouble your Lordships with some arguments in its favour. The noble and learned Lord is always a very formidable antagonist, and at the present moment I am quite in the dark as to what the nature of his objections may be. I may state that I have had sent to me by post a Circular upon this matter; but I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord had no hand in drawing it up, because, although it bears upon the same subject which was dealt with in the Bill of last year, it has no bearing upon the Bill as it at present stands before the House. Your Lordships will see for yourselves that in the Bill of 1890, though the number of words omitted or inserted, as compared with the Bill of last year, is not large, yet that a vast change has been made in the whole scope and operation of the Bill. The Bill of last year affected all refreshment rooms licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors, whether already licensed or to be hereafter licensed. Objection was taken last year, as objection has been taken in the Circular to which I refer, that it would be quite impossible to bring such provisions to bear upon already existing licensed refreshment rooms, without entailing great difficulty in bringing the law into operation, and without throwing a great deal of hard-ship upon those who had invested their capital upon the launching of those undertakings; and though I may regret the limitation of the scope of the Bill, still it has the advantage that it now steers clear of all that class of objections. It does not interfere with existing licenses; it does not interfere in any way with refreshment rooms at present licensed; it does not restrict any existing right or put any burden upon people in respect of them which they ought not to bear. Now, why do I say this? For this reason: that in the Bill of the present year the important words are omitted which were in the Bill of last year, providing that the Licensing Authorities should neither grant any new license, nor renew any existing license. Those words have been left out. Therefore, the scope of the present Bill is considerably diminished, and it is no longer open to the objections which were levelled at the Bill of last year. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the distinction which has been made, and that the objections he may make will be quite distinct from those put forward in the Circular to which I refer. In the Circular it is said that it is intended to extend the waiting accommodation. That is not the purpose of my Bill. It is to provide that where there is no proper waiting accommodation, such accommodation shall be provided, in the interest and for the comfort of the ordinary traveller. The object of the Bill is not to provide luxuries, but to provide that where waiting rooms do not exist at the present time they should be provided at Railway Stations where refreshment rooms already exist. I need not take up your Lordships' time by pointing out that the existence of licensed refreshment rooms is a question which must be regarded by Parliament; and, putting aside the objections against the Bill of last year as to interfering with existing arrangements, and looking to the licenses to be hereafter granted, nobody can say that Parliament may not properly impose such conditions as it thinks ought to be imposed in the interests of those who have to travel by railway. I need not draw harrowing pictures, but I wish to point out that of necessity where a refreshment room is licensed it presupposes the existence of a considerable amount of railway passenger traffic. Now, that traffic comprises persons of all ages, classes, tastes, and habits, and it seems to me a very great hardship that all travellers, whatever their age, sex, tastes, or habits may be, should be compelled to take shelter from the weather in what may be very little better than drinking saloons. That is quite apart from the interests of temperance; but I think, apart from those interests, there is a great deal to be said in favour of my contention. If you look at it from this point of view ordinary mankind may very properly be divided into three classes in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquors. There are those whose steadiness of purpose is such that if they desire to drink liquors they may trust themselves to take them in moderation whether in railway stations or in drinking saloons; there are other persons who neglect no opportunity which comes in their way of wetting their whistles and quenching their thirst; and there is a third and very large proportion of travellers who neither possess the steadiness of purpose of temperance theorists, nor are yet always seeking opportunities to allay their thirst, but who are liable to be acted upon by the influences to which they are subjected, and who are not of sufficiently strong purpose to resist temptation when it is thrown in their way. I am by no means a friend of grandmotherly legislation, and in my humble way I have done something to prevent it. This Circular says that this Bill is intended to strike a blow at the Licensed Victuallers; I have great respect for Licensed Victuallers. I had the honour, in 1874, to take charge of a Bill in the interests of that very respectable body of men, which obtained their support. But while I am desirous that the legitimate interests of the Licensed Victuallers should be protected, I do not desire that every traveller, whether he wishes it or not, if he has to shelter himself in bitter weather from wind or storm shall be driven to compete with the jostling crowds at the counter and tables of a refreshment room. I do not see what right, when the interests of the Licensed Victuallers are protected, they have to insist that everybody should be exposed, whether they will or not, to the influence of drink. I take it the Railway Companies are bound to provide proper accommodation for their travellers; and can that be called proper accommodation which does not secure adequate shelter without exposing them to the great inconvenience and discomfort of going into a refreshment room, whether it be large or small? Now, I have curious testimony to bring before your Lordships in this matter. An eminent Divine, who is known to many of your Lordships, writes from a junction where he was delayed for an hour between two trains, and ho says— Perhaps the condition of things which I am now unpleasantly experiencing may be useful to you in the discussion on your Bill about railway stations. A polite official has just informed me that there is no waiting room for gentlemen at this large station except the refreshment rooms. Into one of these I made my way, and found it pervaded by a pungent odour of beer and whiskey, with loud chatter going on, and with doors on each side so as to form a passage through from one platform to the other. I was a little sceptical at one time as to the need for your Bill, hut certainly, in point of comfort as well as temperance, I am now of a different opinion. That, as I have said, has been sent to me by a traveller who was waiting for an hour at a station where there was no convenience for waiting, except a refreshment room, with all its discomfort and inconvenience. This Circular says there is no evidence about inconvenience experienced. I think everybody will bear me witness, who is conversant with the subject, that there is. It may be that none of your Lordships have been detained at stations where this accommodation is not provided; but there are large and important stations where there is no accommodation except of this nature. I do not know that we should do wisely at all times to appeal to our fellow subjects at the Antipodes for arguments, but I may say that so strong is the feeling among the colonists with regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors at railway station refreshment rooms, that in New Zealand it is prohibited altogether, and in Victoria such liquors are not allowed to be sold at railway refreshment rooms within a radius of 20 miles from Melbourne. That shows what they think of the evil in connection with this subject. I do not see that statistics are required in a case of this kind. I do not see that they are at all necessary to prove my case. When you are dealing with the motives and influences which affect men, I do not think statistics are indispensable for proving your case. If you are dealing with any economic question affecting the country, or any matters of trade, it is necessary to consult the Barometer of Trade; so, if you are discussing the increase or diminution of crime, statistics are very valuable; and again, with regard to education, you will find figures come usefully to hand. With regard to sanitary matters, too, or sanitary legislation, if you are going to inquire into the question of sanitation as affecting people's lives, vital statistics are of the utmost importance1. But I do not see that, in regard to the ordinary motives for human action, statistics are required to prove the case. I am content to appeal to the experience of mankind in this matter. All that is asked for in this Bill is to extend a principle which is already known to the law, namely, that the sale of intoxicating liquors should not be allowed without control. That is a proposition which has always found its place in the English law, and I need not discuss the necessity for such restriction. It was said last year, "Why not leave the matter to the discretion of the Licensing Justices?" I do not see that the Licensing Justices could properly deal with the question. What you are now asked to do is to provide that a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors shall not be granted on certain premises unless certain other premises are provided. Under the existing law all that the Licensing Justices have to do is to satisfy themselves as to the propriety and sufficiency of the accommodation provided in respect of the premises, and they would be, I think, exceeding their jurisdiction and going outside the sphere of the matters confided to them, if they imported into the consideration of licensing a railway station refreshment room the question whether there was accommodation apart from the refreshment room which they were called upon to license, Your Lordships will remember that the discretion of the Justices is already very much restricted by law—Parliament has limited the discretion of the Justices to certain matters. The discretion which the Justices exercise is of a very limited character. I need not point out the different qualifications and restrictions which Parliament imposes with reference to the different licenses, but in the case of publicans' licenses, the only matters which the Justices have left to their discretion are as to whether the required accommodation is necessary, and as to the respectability of the applicant for the license. They are rigidly restricted as to the minimum accommodation to be provided for the public, and they are restricted as to the penal disqualifications which the applicant may be lying under, or any disqualifications which may affect the applicant in regard to complying with the law. So, again, with regard to beer-selling, the discretion of the Justices is confined to the question of the value of the house licensed and other similar matters. Then, with regard to licenses for the sale of beer off the premises, there are restrictions on the discretion of the Justices. So that having limited the discretion of the Justices in those important respects, you are only asked now to extend the principle by giving them power to do that which they would not at present have power to do, namely, take into consideration other things beyond the accommodation provided by the refreshment rooms themselves. You are empowering them to do that which, without this legislation, would be wholly extraneous to the duties entrusted to them. In all these matters Parliament has pointed out to the Justices the rules by which they are to be guided, and I ask your Lordships to extend the application of this principle somewhat further, and to say that hereafter a license shall not be granted to any new railway refreshment rooms without taking care that adequate accommodation is provided for the public, without the discomfort, inconvenience, and temptation which occur where there are only rooms or promises in which the sale of intoxicating liquors is actively going on. This circular which I have received focusses all the objections which were made to the Bill of last year, but it is really a very misleading document. I have already pointed out to your Lordships that the first paragraph describing the professed object of the Bill is entirely misleading. The Bill has not for its object the providing of more extensive waiting accommodation, but requires that where there is no waiting accommodation now, it shall be provided before a licence is granted for a refreshment room. The fact is that the whole of this document comes a year too late. It looks as if it had been struck off a year ago and not put into circulation until now. Paragraph 3 says that upon consideration it will be found that it is sought to make the licence holder responsible for the mainten—ance of order in the other premises, and that the Licensing Authority is to be constituted the judge as to whether such waiting accommodation is sufficiently ample. That is perfectly true in respect of a licence to be hereafter granted. But it may be said that in this way a burden is being imposed upon the licencees, and there is a paragraph in the Circular following that points out that a licence holder is a person unconnected with the Railway Company's affairs, and has no right with regard to any part of the Railway Company's property, except that which is leased to him. That might be all very well with regard to the past, but it has nothing whatever to do with legislation for the future. Of course the licence holder must be ex hypothesi the tenant of the Company, and all he will have to do will be to obtain from his landlord a covenant that they will comply with the provisions of the law. There will be no hardship in that. If the Railway Company will be bound by that covenant, and if they fail to observe it the lessee would have his action against them for damages. I say that no hardship would arise if you limit the measure in the manner to which I have referred. I think if your Lordships will read the Circular attentively you will see that it admits there is good reason for some such legislation as this. The last paragraph says— It might be possible to demonstrate that in some places sufficient waiting accommodation would be provided, but that cannot be done without making the licence holder responsible in the matter. Well, I say that can be done without making the licence holder responsible at all, because in all future leases all ho will have to do is to obtain that covenant, and he will then have his remedy against the company whose property is to be benefited by the granting of the licence. Then paragraph 4 says that— It would be obviously wrong, unjust, and impossible to make the contractors under their existing leases responsible for the waiting rooms. That may be true. It may be, and it might have been a valid objection last year, but it does not lie against the Bill, as at present proposed for your Lordships' consideration. It may be said, if your Lordships' do not propose to touch existing waiting rooms is it worth while to legislate in this matter at all? I think it is. In the first place we are by no means at the end of the growth of our railway system in England. Our industrial conditions have altered very much during the past few years. The great Railway Companies have had to double their lines, and they all tell you that that is not the best way to deal with our heavy through traffic, but, on the contrary, it is far better to make alternative lines over which that traffic may be carried, so as to open up new country. And I think, with the accumulations of capital which exist in this country, it is by no means improbable that we may see much larger developments of the railway system than at present exist. With the increase of population, further accommodation is required for the travelling public, and I think it will be a very valuable tiling to place upon the Statute Book such a provision as this. I think if Parliament concurs in restricting future licenses in the manner I propose, it is not chimerical to suppose that the great Railway Companies, who have up to this time granted various rights under agreements, as the leases run out, would find it worth while to relieve their passengers and customers from the discomfort and inconvenience to which I have already referred, and in that way alone, I think the passing of this measure might have a very beneficial moral effect by bringing home to Railway Companies the duties they owe to their passengers and customers. Something is said in the Circular about the absence of public discussion in reference to this question. I have had an intimation that the great Temperance Organisations in thi country were anxious to agitate in favour of this Bill, but I thought it better to present the matter before your Lordships without embarking on any great popular agitation, and for this reason, that this Hill does not owe its origin to any great temperance organisation at all, and I do not see why your Lordships should be deprived of the credit which you will gain by legislating upon this subject of the sale of intoxicating liquors. For myself I am by no means disposed to accept the temperance platform. No doubt their agitation has done a great deal of good, but I think they carry their principles much too far. I would rather appeal to your Lordships' sense of justice than to popular agitation on this subject, and I trust that this House will take the common-sense view of the rights of ordinary railway passengers. I have been urged to incorporate in this Bill other matters with regard to this subject. There has been a great practice of hawking liquors about on the railway platforms. I believe that practice is thoroughly illegal, and the North Western Railway Company has abandoned it, but I am afraid the Croat Western still allow it to prevail. A license to sell intoxicating liquors in a refreshment room certainly does not carry with it a commission to hawk liquors on railway platforms; and I am informed that a great deal of mischief has been done by the practice. Still, I do not propose to incorporate that restriction in this Bill, as it lies rather outside the scope of it. I have thought it wiser to leave out of the Bill all questions of that kind, and to confine it simply to the principle of securing justice for railway travellers. Your Lordships are in a very favourable position for dealing with this question. You have interests which enable you to know the habits of those for whom you are legislating. As country' gentlemen and Justices of the Peace, you are familiar with the habits of ordinary travellers, and it is on their behalf that I ask you to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. I will repeat that the Bill is in no way intended to interfere with existing trade arrangements or existing contracts. I am all for freedom of contract and for preserving contracts when they are entered into. This Bill is free from the objections made to that of last year. I am by no means wedded to the wording of the Bill. If any noble Lord thinks it right to provide more clearly than he thinks is done by the Bill that it shall not affect existing arrangements, I shall be glad to adopt any suggestions, but I shall be surprised if the noble and learned Lord should think it right to repeat the statements contained in the Circular to which I have referred. I ask your Lordships for the Second Reading of this Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."

LORD BRAMWELL

My Lords, I move your Lordships that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I cannot defend the Circular from the many attacks which the noble Karl has made upon it, because, to tell the truth, I have not studied it. I thought the best answer to the noble Earl's observations was to be found in the Bill itself. But I may say one thing in excuse for the authors of the Circular, with which, indeed, I had nothing to do, which is this: that doubts have been entertained by very capable persons whether the Bill is limited to licenses which are to be granted to persons at railway stations for the first time. My construction of the Bill was that it is, but I imagine that those who drew up the Circular had their fears, and if they were wrong they may be forgiven, considering the doubts which had been entertained upon the subject. At all events, if there is any doubt in the Bill it can be set right, and I will deal with the Bill as one which is applicable, not to stations or to persons where or to whom licenses have been heretofore given, but to places and persons where or to whom licenses may be granted after this Bill becomes law, if it ever does so. But if that is so, does nor the Bill stand self-condemned? If these numerous stations are so conducted, and the circumstances surrounding them are such that no legislation is necessary in regard to them, what occasion is there for what I was going to call—without disrespect to the noble Earl—this sort of peddling legislation as to the half-dozen stations which may come into existence, where licenses may be granted, and where refreshments may be obtained? The noble Earl has told your Lordships that the reason ho has left these existing persons and stations out of his Bill is because it would be interfering with things that have been arranged, and I suppose he means "vested interests;" but if there is anything of such a character as to require legislation for future stations and persons, why surely something might properly be done as to those already in existence, except, indeed, for one reason—that, in my opinion, there is a tribunal already which could deal with them, that is to say the Licensing Magistrates. But in this Bill it is expressly enacted that the Licensing Magistrates, however satisfied they maybe with the arrangements for the accommodation required from the applicant for the license, however desirable they may think it that the license should be granted, shall not grant it, unless these particular things are existing which the noble Earl says should be there. I do not know whether your Lordships know what those things are. I will refer to them. There must be two separate rooms—one for ladies and one for gentlemen, besides the refreshment room. If rooms are not there already they must be built; if the land is not there upon which they can be built it must be obtained; and there must be a comfortable fire provided in each of those rooms. Those are the requisites which must exist already in order that the new licence may be granted. What is such a requisition as that worth? The consequences will be in many cases—they certainly well may be—that the expense of getting those two rooms and providing the furniture and fire will be such that it will not be worth the while of anybody to sell refreshments there, because, of course, the expense of so doing will be part of the cost of the arrangement that will have to be made for the purpose of getting the licence. I will ask your Lordships if it is not most unreasonable to exact such a thing as that? Two separate rooms to be furnished and fires kept going in them! What good is to be done by it? Of course, if the licence for selling "intoxicating liquor," as it is always called—I suppose that means beer, spirits, wine, and what not—is not granted, the premises will not be licensed for sailing anything there, even the most harmless refreshment in the world, not because these bars are supported by the sale of beer and spirits, but because the people at a refreshment room may only be able to sell half of what they would desire. And what is the consequence? Although it is admitted that a refreshment room would be desirable, and although the Licensing Justices, cither from their own knowledge or otherwise, are aware that the accommodation is perfectly sufficient for all reasonable purposes—not perhaps for anybody, who may be kept there for an hour, objecting to the smell of beer and gin, which, as we all know, may be very disagreeable—they are to be perfectly unable to grant the licence. Now, what will be the effect of all this? There will be two consequences: one that you will have a small beer shop established just outside the rail way station, which, of course, can always be got, instead of a decently-conducted railway station refreshment room. Then, in the other case, if these rooms are got and made so luxurious and comfortable as the noble Earl would make them, the beer and spirits will be taken into the warm and comfortable room instead of being drunk at the refreshment bar. It seems to me, therefore, that more drinking would be promoted by the scheme of the noble Earl than is carried on at present. I cannot help thinking that this is really a meddling with things without any occasion for it. The noble Earl says that at the Antipodes, in New Zealand, and the district within 20 miles of Melbourne, they are so rigorous in their objection to the sale of intoxicating liquors that they resolved that those liquors shall not be sold at all in those places. That would be an intelligible proposition, though it would be a mischievous one, I think; but the legislation of the noble Earl would put difficulties in the way of it, saying not that you shall not do it, but that you shall only do it under circumstances of discomfort. Now, there is another proof of unreasonableness here, I think, in the last clause but one, by which it is enacted that, if these rooms, when built and furnished, are not kept in good order and the fires kept up and the place made comfortable—what do your Lordships suppose?—why the unfortunate bar-keeper, who has nothing whatever to do with the rooms, and who cannot inter- fere with them, is to be liable for penalties as though he were selling liquor without a licence. Well, that is the proposition which your Lordships are asked to affirm. I think it is one of those examples which good people are always giving us. When good people are attempting to do good, they do not care at what cost to other people it may be that they will bring it about. The noble Earl said he did not think there was any necessity for statistics in this matter. I do not think there is, and I do not know that they would help him. But ho did give us most reluctantly some statistics of two persons; one was the unfortunate Divine who was kept in a refreshment room with the smell of beer and spirits around him for an hour, and the other was the noble Earl himself, because it is perfectly manifest that he dislikes these things. Those were the only two witnesses he called in support of his Bill, and I submit to your Lordships that it should be rejected.

Amendment moved, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Motion the words "this day six months."—(The Lord Bramwell.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I think my noble and learned Friend has been a little hard on the noble Earl opposite. I think there is something to be said for the principle of this Bill, though I do not think there is much to be said for the mode in which its provisions are to be carried into effect. The first clause is, to my mind, open to some doubt, but that, I suppose, the noble Earl would remedy. It speaks of renewing a licence in such a way as that it would apply not only to new licences, but to those which would have to be renewed every year. I presume that would be remedied, and the Bill made strictly applicable to places where there are now no licences. I have not had much personal experience of station accommodation, but I should think it is a very objectionable thing, indeed, that passengers—men, women, and children—should have no place within which to wait except the refreshment bar. I do not think it is a satisfactory state of things. I can quite conceive, there might be no necessity for two waiting rooms in small stations where one general waiting room would be enough; but I think where a Railway Company or anybody authorised by the company applies for a licence to establish a refreshment bar, there is some reason for saying that some other place should be provided where passengers may wait if they choose. The primary object of railways is to carry passengers, and not to provide refreshment bars. Therefore I think there is something really to be said for the principle of the Bill. But with regard to the last clause, to which attention has been called, I cannot conceive that Parliament would enact such a provision, because one cannot imagine anything more intolerable than that if the Railway Company does not provide fire and coals, for example, the holder of the licence might be subject to all the penalties to which anyone is liable who sells intoxicating liquors contrary to the law. That is a provision which nobody would agree to; but I can conceive that, the licence being granted for one year, it might be presumed that the Railway Company desire the refreshment room to be continued in that place, otherwise it would not give its sanction; and when the licence holder comes again to the Justices for the renewal of the licence, and it is shown there has not been proper accommodation provided for the passengers, the licence should not be renewed. That would be a proper penalty. Of course, in some cases the companies themselves are the holders of the licences, and no doubt in those cases the conditions would be observed. I should think, my Lords, the Bill might be read a second time, and that these provisions might be considered and amended in Committee.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

I do not think it would be well that this Bill should be rejected as if it were a joke, as the noble and learned Lord suggests. He says it would affect only one or two small stations in the future; but when I looked around the Benches and saw all the leading representatives of the Railway Companies who have come down to the House to-night, I thought that there must be some very grave railway interest at stake. I do not quite agree with this Bill, but I am rather inclined to support the Second Reading for these reasons. Nobody admires the arrangement of our main lines of railway more than I do; but for those who have to travel across country, nothing more inconvenient can be imagined than the accommodation provided. I have, unfortunately, often to cross the country from east to west, and from west to east, and the way in which one is turned out of carriages and made to wait for other trains, and so on, is extremely provoking and trying. I can, therefore, support what has been said as to the necessity for having decent railway waiting accommodation. The time lost in crossing the country in that way is very great. I happen to know one place, a country junction, which I often have to visit, and I find there an exact picture of that which was so much jeered at by the noble and learned Lord as affecting not only the travelling public, but the railway people themselves. At this cross junction I and many of my country friends have often to wait, and the only place there is to wait in is in the booking office, through which there is a thorough draught, and where there is hardly room enough for those who want to take tickets. There is a place for ladies, and the only other place is a drinking shop which is extremely un-savoury from the very nasty chronic smell of liquor. I think that is a great hardship to the working-class people and middle-class people whom I constantly see at that junction. I believe if you put this to the test by having Circulars from the Board of Trade, as far as my knowledge goes from what I heard when I was in that Department, yon will find that there are a great number of places where there is no waiting accommodation except where liquor is sold. Though I do not belong to the Temperance Organisation, I think it is extremely injurious to the railway servants themselves that such a state of things should exist, and it does not make one's fellow-creatures sometimes pleasant company. I think that drinking at these stations is not a desirable thing for the general public. If you say it is a small thing for Parliament to interfere with, I think it was the interference of Parliament which induced the addition of smoking-carriages to trains. Parliament did not think that matter too trifling for interference, and I put it to your Lordships whether it is not more necessary that waiting rooms should be provided where people can wait and avoid the nuisances of these horrid drinking shops than to provide smoking carriages. Though I do not think the Bill perfect, I shall certainly vote in favour of it as a protest against the very wretched accommodation which the Railway Companies provide for their customers.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

I did not intend to trouble your Lordships, but I think my noble friend has suggested the proper form for this Bill. It is this: that whenever it appears that a Railway Company has not done anything which people think it should do, the Justices should not renew the licence if it has one. I do not see that there is any connection between the two things. My noble Friend wants more extensive waiting room accommodation.

* EARL BEAUCHAMP

No; I said a waiting-room.

* LOBD GRIMTHORPE

I know—in addition; therefore more extensive waiting-room accommodation. That is one of my noble Friend's ingenious distinctions. I submit that you must look out for some more straightforward way of enforcing duties, if they arise. But my noble Friend said that Parliament required Railway Companies to provide smoking carriages, in order to protect people who do not smoke from the illegal nuisance caused by people who do smoke. But that is exactly the sort of thing Parliament should do. If it thinks these refreshment rooms should be abolished, why not abolish them? If you desire to pass a Bill requiring these waiting-rooms to be established, well let some proper and trustworthy authority be enabled to order them; but I do not agree with this mode of inflicting the penalty. If they are not provided, fine the company in some other way. You would tine the holder of the licence under that wonderful 2nd clause, if the fire goes out or anything is not done which the local Justices or their friends want. Then my noble Friend said that the Justices have no control now. That is certainly not so; for by a recent decision which went to the Court of Appeal, and was acquiesced in—I do not know whether it was carried to your Lordships House—the Justices have full discretion in granting licenses, and in renewing them. That is a matter of perfectly settled law now. I know from my own experience as a Justice that there is always some body to be found ready to make every objection that can be offered when the license is to be renewed. I asked a man on one occasion for whom he appeared, and he replied, "I decline to say." I said—"If you decline to say, I decline to hear you." Of course, he had been sent to make objection by somebody—an adjacent public-house owner, or a Temperance Organisation, and if he had chosen to tell us we must have heard him. There is nothing to prevent people objecting to the granting or renewing of licences. We must hear them, and if we do not, the Queen's Bench will say that the Justices have not thoroughly heard and determined the case and that they had acted from prejudice. Therefore, as far as that goes, I cannot see the slightest necessity for the Bill, because, besides being wrong in principle, it is not required. My noble Friend said he had no statistics, and did not want any. Why does not he want any? Does he expect us to take his statements from one unhappy divine, who had to tolerate the smell of beer and spirits at a railway station for an hour, as conclusive? All I can say is that I should like to have the cross-examination of that gentleman. I have had some experience of railway stations, and where on earth there can be a large railway station in which a great divine was driven to sit in the refreshment bar all that time I cannot imagine. On the other hand, I know some where there is a waiting-room nearly half the size of this House, but no refreshment room; there is not a cup of tea to be had in the place. That is because people will not take refreshment rooms unless they can sell beer and liquors. I wonder what my noble Friend's clients want, if he has any? People want to get a cup of tea or coffee if they can. In every point of view, it seems to me, the Bill is entirely ill-founded; it is not well calculated to effect its object. Everyone who has spoken for it admits that it wants amending, and certainly my noble Friend has not quite appreciated the effect of his 2nd clause, for he passed it over as a thing not worth attending to. The unhappy licence-holder would have no means of controlling the Railway Company. We are always told that Railway Companies are very difficult people to control. It is no use talking about stipulation; if they put up their waiting rooms to auction they would always find plenty of people who would take them without any stipulation whatever. There is no doubt about that. I think, whether my noble Friend knows it or not, there is a good deal of temperance agitation at the bottom of his Bill.

* EARL BEAUCHAMP

No.

* LORD GRIMTHORPE

I think, although my noble Friend may not be conscious of it, that is really the case. I can see no want whatever for the Bill. I complain of it, instead of doing what it professes in a straight forward way it does it in an indirect way. I quite agree that Railway Companies want a great deal of control in the timing of their trains, and if anybody will bring in a Bill for that purpose I will not stand in the way. I say, deliberately, that in those sort of things Parliament has a perfect right to interfere, and that it has always assorted its right to interfere, for the public convenience and safety, though not for the purpose of transferring railway profits to other trades. Those are the two things for which Parliament has a right to act, and beyond that it has no right to legislate in matters of this kind.

* THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

I hope your Lordships will not be induced to approve of the Second Reading of this Bill. I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I cannot say I have heard one single real argument for the Bill yet. I think there is a very strong feeling with regard to this matter; but the Railway Companies may be left to consider for themselves whether it is necessary to have one or two extra rooms at railway stations. This Bill seems to me a most irregular proposition, if my noble Friend will allow me to say so, and one which should not be accepted by your Lordships.

* LORD DE RAMSEY

My Lords, I shall ask your attention for a few moments while I endeavour very shortly to give a parting kick to this Bill. The noble Earl who moved it has more or less admitted that it is capable of improvement. I do not know whether he has considered the fact; but I am advised that Clause 5 will apply to Section 3, and that all those who apply for the renewal of their licenses would come under them. The noble Earl, I understood, denied that he advocated more extensive accommodation; but he did not mention once in his speech that lie proposed to separate the sexes at the stations. That would be necessary, I presume, and what would be the result? That we should have a first class refreshment room and first class waiting room for men; a first class refreshment room and first class waiting room for ladies, and the same all through in regard to the other classes of passengers.

* EARL BEAUCHAMP

Not for the classes—for the sexes.

* LORD DE RAMSEY

I hardly think that the Railway Companies would alter their arrangements and put their first and third-class passengers in the same waiting-rooms to suit the clauses of this Bill. It is not practicable. I speak with some knowledge of the matter, and I confidently assert that the noble Earl is in advance of public opinion in regard to it. It is not a matter for your Lordships; it is essentially a matter for the Licensing Authorities; and if there is any body of people in the country who have a wish in this matter, why do not they show their strength at the Licensing Sessions, and use their influence with the magistrates not to grant the licenses as they exist at present? I am convinced, my Lords, that up to the present the Licensing Justices have used great discretion in this matter, and where they have not been wanted licenses have not been granted. This is, I suggest, an unnecessary interference with the Railway Companies and the contractors. I will take them together, because the Railway Companies in some cases carry on their own refreshment rooms, in others it is done by contractors. It is an unnecessary interference with them, and I fail to see, up to the present, that there has been any particular demand for this accommodation. To my mind, on the contrary, there is a very great objection to the noble Earl's Bill, and it is this: We all know that one of the great difficulties of the day is the carrying of the Metropolitan traffic by the great railways around this city. The noble Earl last year suggested the exemption of the Metropolis; but this year he has not said a word about that, and if this Bill were carried, considering the pounds an inch that land near London is worth, it would be impossible for the Railway Companies to do their duty to the passengers, for they would not be able to obtain space for the accommodation. I will not detain your Lordships further. This is essentially a matter of supply and demand. As far as we have seen, the Railway Companies have carried out what was wanted of them; but even if they had not, it is a matter for them to decide. It is to their interest to provide good accommodation for their passengers; and it is a certainty that where good accommodation is not provided in these days of competition, they will lose a large amount of traffic. I therefore would ask your Lordships to reject the Bill.

LORD HERSCHELL

I should like to say why I should vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I agree very largely with the criticisms of my noble and learned Friend; but I think the Railway Companies do need a little pressure in this matter to meet a complaint which has been admitted to be reasonable by even those speakers who have opposed the Second Reading. I am afraid the optimistic view on the part of the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade is not likely to put that amount of pressure on the Railway Companies which they may need. The Bill only proposes to deal, as I understand, with railway refreshment rooms hereafter to be established. It is said that the system is in general a bad one, and that you should not have a refreshment room, only a waiting room; but there may be cases in which it would be possible to avoid any difficulty of that kind. I should like to say that, as far as the last point referred to is concerned, the power might well be exercised when licenses are asked for in respect of railway stations, upon ascertaining what accommodation is provided there, and upon its being shown that there is reason why the accommodation provided should be the only accommodation.

* EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I have only a few words to say. The noble Lord has said that last year the Metropolis was exempted, and that there is now no exemption. It is for this simple reason: that the mischief is done in the Metropolis. On the Underground Railways in London, where land is so valuable, the stations have all obtained their licenses, and they therefore are exempt. Then the noble and learned Lord said all existing licenses may be brought under the operation of this Bill as it stands. That is not my intention, and if any form of words can be suggested to make that meaning clear I will gladly adopt them. I have no objection to make any concession on that point. Then with regard to what was said by the noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, I think it has been answered by the noble Lord opposite. As to temperance agitation, I can only deny what Lord Grimthorpe has attributed to me. As regards the Licensing Justices, I do not think anybody with the slightest pretensi6n to being a lawyer can say that they can deal with the subject at present. I was much surprised to hear my noble Friend say that the matter is already provided for by the law. I am sure the Licensing Justices cannot deal with the matter. The Licensing Justices act under the authority of Parliament. They have no power at present in granting a license for one set of premises to inquire into the state of, or what is done on other premises. If the Licensing Justices wore to take into consideration the state of premises A and B when called upon to license premises C and D they would be exceeding their duty, which I think is what the Licensing Justices are not in the habit of doing. The noble Lord near me has evidently his own views about the timing of trains. He is very anxious to have a Bill introduced with regard to that subject, and to to keep Railway Companies to the contracts they have entered into, but that is entirely a different question. The noble Lord has his hobby, and may deal with it. I maintain that Railway Companies are bound to provide due and proper accommodation for railway passengers, without exposing them to unnecessary discomfort and inconvenience. That is a very simple proposition; and I do not think it is a good argument that because we have allowed the Railway Companies to slip out of our control to a great extent we should allow them to escape from it still further, and I do not see why adequate provision should not be made in this matter. A noble Lord said that the Railway Companies might put the licenses up to auction, and A, B, C, and D might contend with each other for them, and disregard the conditions. They might; but what would be the consequence? They would have no grievance whatever to complain of on being deprived of their licenses. It is quite possible the penalty in the last clause may be too severe. If so, I shall be happy to amend it; but nobody knows better than Lord Kimberley what difficulties there are surrounding such a question as this. I shall be glad if your Lordships will give a Second Heading to this Bill, which I am quite sure will be of great use to a large portion of Her Majesty's subjects.

On Question, that the word "now" stnad part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 54.

Resolved in the negative.

Bill to be read 2^a on this day six months.