Lords Sitting of 20 May 1890

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL—(No. 85.)
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, before this Bill goes into Committee I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India whether he has taken into consideration the Petition of the Salford School Board in reference to it. I am told that their Petition was very reasonable, and I would refer him particularly to Clause 5, which represents the undesirableness of placing juvenile offenders under the police. The other point to which I wish to call attention is that offenders sent to day Industrial Schools should be detained there for three years as in the case of Truant Schools; they say that detention there for one year is not sufficient to make the desired improvement in offenders.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): With reference to the Petition from the Salford School Board it has been presented to your Lordships' House, and is now I believe, on the Table. A copy of it has been forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, I have no doubt, will give me his views as soon as he has considered it. I will put down the Third Reading of the Bill for the 12th June, and I may say that for the same date I shall put down for Third Reading the Juvenile Offenders Bill and the Reformatory Schools Bill.
Bill reported without further amendment, and to be read 3ª on Thursday the 12th of June next.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 95.)
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c., with amendments: The Report thereof received; Bills re-committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL. (No. 96.)
    CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL.
    A Bill to amend the law relating to insurances on the lives of children Was presented by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Tuesday, the 10th of June next. (No. 97.)
    CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL.
    A Bill to amend the law relating to the custody of children—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1ª, to be printed, and to be read 2ª on the first sitting day after the recess at Whitsuntide (No. 98.)
  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE EXTENSION (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 74.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    *LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I have postponed moving the Second Reading of this Bill until to-day, as there was some delay in the printing of it, and I very nearly had a somewhat similar Bill thrown out on a former occasion on account of its not being in the hands of Members of the House. This Bill is drafted from a small Local Government Bill for Belfast. Before the time of the introduction of that measure, there was, I believe, a system of cumulative voting. People had not in that part of the Kingdom rights such as are possessed in England, and the Earl of Erne introduced into that Bill a clause that women should count in the same proportion as men as voters. That measure was passed. If the Bill which I have now laid before your Lordships were carried the women would have more votes than the men, but that is very far from my wish in this or in any proposal I have ever made for extending the franchise to women. Your Lordships remember the play of Aristophanes, in which the women robbed the men of their clothes, appeared in them, and outvoted their husbands, and the poor men were left to put on the women's clothes. I do not wish the women to have any undue advantages. I only contend that this is a measure of justice. As the Duke of Buckingham said to me on presenting my Bill applying to women, "It is a step in the right direction, but the country is not yet ripe for woman suffrage." The principle of this Bill has, I believe, been the foundation of the Local Government Bill of England—the right of voting

    1383
    given to women both in England and in Scotland is founded upon this small, piece meal measure. As ratepayers, they have as much right to vote as men. L find that the right to vote extended to married women in Scotland is not exercised by them, and that very little enthusiasm has been excited amongst them at the possession of that right. My Lords, if you pass this Bill you can do no injury to anyone. I would urge your Lordships to do away with prejudice and grant the Bill a second Reading, as an innocent measure, a small instilment of justice, and something of which you may be proud rather than ashamed. We have great facilities for bringing forward and passing measures in this House; whereas in the other House of Paliament, where I am told there is a similar Bill pending at the present time, there are great and constant obstacles.
    Moved, "That the Hill he now read 2ª".
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, in the somewhat general observations which the noble Lord has addressed to the House he did not say much—hardly anything at ail-about the Bill he has introduced, or the clauses it contains. I think it would probably be in accordance with the wish of the House, and probably of the noble Earl himself, that I should implicitly follow his example. As far as I have soon, the Bill is almost identical with that which he introduced last year. I told him on that occasion that his method was merely fragmentary, dealing with but a small though, perhaps, not unimportant portion of the much larger subject of the Municipal Franchise in Ire-land, and I also told him that the subject was not one which could be dealt with in a Bill of the character introduced by the noble Lord. I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on that occasion, and I am afraid I am under the painful necessity of again moving the rejection of this Bill. I move that the House read this Bill a second time this day six months.
    Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months") (The Lord Privy Seal [E Cadogan]): On
    1384
    question that ("now") stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative: Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

  SUCK RIVER DRAINAGE (PROVISION OF FUNDS) BILL.—(No. 92.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this Bill is one of a sort which is commonly known as Money Bills, and I need not therefore trouble your Lordships with the details of it. I may state generally that it is for the purpose of assisting the drainage of a large district in the counties of Galway and Roscommon. The Drainage Board was established in 1878, and under the powers which they then took they were not enabled then to entirely complete the system of drainage which it was proposed to establish. Since then they have found that if further funds were not granted all the monies which had been expended would be wasted. Therefore the object of the present Bill is to provide additional funds, partly as a, free grant and partly as a loan from the Board of Works. A Private Bill had been introduced upon the subject; but as it was not thought right to make a free grant of public funds under a Private Bill it was found necessary to draft the present Bill in order to enable the Treasury to grant the £50,000. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
    Bill read 2ª (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  "CITY OF PARIS" S.S. ACCIDENT.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD NORTON: The noble Earl do la Warr, being obliged to leave the House, has asked me to put the question of which he has given notice, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the inquiry into the case of the steamship "City of Paris" should be held in open Court to which the public will be admitted?
    *THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I gave the noble Earl an assurance in private that the usual course will be followed, so that this

    1385
    inquiry would be held in open Court to which the public will be admitted. I should like to add that the inquiry cannot be commenced until after the middle of next month, because some of the material witnesses will not have returned from their present voyage until that time; but I may state that no an necessary delay shall take place.

  THE SUPPRESSION' OF PUBLIC HOUSES.

    QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
    *VISCOUNT BARRLYGTON: My Lords, in rising to ask the question of which I have given notice, first let me crave the greatest measure of forbearance and indulgence which your Lordships always grant to Members of your House who address you for the first time. I trust that you will think there is sufficient importance in the question to justify me in trespassing upon your time and attention for a few minutes. There is no question but that at the present time people's minds are very much exercised with regard to the licensing question. It is generally assumed and asserted that there are far too many public houses in the country. The deduction drawn from that is that there is greater encouragement to drinking habits, and a larger amount of drink consumed than would otherwise be the case. Now, to both proposition and deduction I very much demur. I can give the result of my experience as a Magistrate of Buckinghamshire. For many years before I had the honour of sitting in your Lordships' House I found it necessary from circumstances to live almost entirely in the country; since that time, from other circumstances, that it is almost essential I should live in London For 30 years, or thereabouts, I lived in Buckinghamshire, and during the whole of that time, I think I may say, I was a tolerably active Magistrate in the county. I acted for many years as Chairman of our Petty Sessions, and I served on most of the County Committees, especially on the Licensing Committee. I recollect, and it will also be fresh in your Lordships' recollection, for it was not many years ago, Sir William Harcourt, when Secretary of State for the Home Department, fulminated certain thunders against the County Magistrates, saying that it
    1386
    was in consequence of their granting new licences annually to the various public houses established that drunkenness went on to the extent it did in the country. Well, my Lords, at the first meeting of our Licensing Committee we discussed that question very carefully. I may say there were present men whom you all recollect: the Duke of Buckingham, then and formerly your Chairman of Committees, and Lord Cottesloe, a man of the highest judicial character, and I may say that at that time he was nearly a total abstainer. I know it was very much against his family's wishes that he should be so, and I think he was advised eventually by his doctor to drink a little, for very much the same reason that Paul said to Timothy, "Drink a little wine for thy stomach's sake." We considered the number of houses and the class of houses, and we were of one opinion, that there were a good many houses in the county doing very little business indeed, and that if they were only let alone they would die a natural death from inanition; but with regard to houses which might be said to be doing a profitable business, we came to an almost unanimous conclusion that if we suppressed some of the houses we should only be adding to the value of those remaining, and that the quantity of drink consumed would not be lessened. Now. I think that opinion was a fair and just one. We were also of opinion that the custom which had prevailed for so many years, of renewing the licences where there was no complaint against the houses, could not be broken without doing gross injustice to the proprietors. Then I asked our police superintendent what he thought of the matter, and his reply was, "Well, you see, sir, there are men who drink, and who will have drink, and if you shut up the 'White Lion' they will go to the 'Red Lion;'" and he said that in the view of the police it was certainly much better for the benefit of the public that the drinkers should be distributed in small numbers about the towns rather than that they should be collected together in a few places. I also consulted upon the matter a clergyman, whom I congratulated upon having no public house in his parish, and he said, "Well, I don't know about that; I know I have a good many drinking

    1387
    people in my parish who will go out and get drink somewhere and who get very-drunk indeed." A good deal of argument has been based upon the temptation offered to the working-man. Some people are always thinking about working-men and making proposals for their regulation and guidance; but I think they might be allowed to think and act a little for themselves. It is said of the working-man, who is always paraded on these occasions, that he is so weak in character that he cannot resist so much temptation, that he may perhaps struggle to pass one or two public houses, but when he comes to the third he can resist no longer, but must go in and quench his thirst with potent libations of intoxicating liquors. On the other hand, it is said that the public house is the working-man's club, and, in that regard, I have sometimes tried mentally to put myself in the place of the working-man. Probably many of your Lordships belong to not one club alone, but to several. I do not know that your Lordships are affected by that circumstance; but I can say for myself that I do not feel any inclination to go in and drink whenever I pass one of the clubs in London; nor do I suppose that the spiritual Lords, when they ascend the classic steps of the Athenaeum, feel any necessity to consume spirituous liquors. But, my Lords. I think it is impossible for us to put ourselves in the place of the working-man in this matter, for the temptation, however it may appear to us, is limited with them by the necessities of their employment and means. Though not a total abstainer myself, I yield to no man in the desire to promote habits of temperance and sobriety among my fellow-countrymen. I am asking this question of Her Majesty's Government both for my own guidance and for that of the County Council of which I have the honour of being a member, and which will probably before long have to deal with these matters. My Lords, I heartily endorse the principle of compensation as followed in the Compensation Clauses of the Bill before the other House of Parliament; for I consider that, if it is necessary to close a house which has hitherto been well conducted, it is only fair that the owner of the licence should receive proper compensation. I cannot help
    1388
    thinking that the craving for drink which seems to be ingrained in the habits of sections of the people cannot be combatted by Act of Parliament, but that it can only be combatted by the force of example, persuasion, and public opinion. I will state, before asking the Government for an answer to the question which I have placed on the Notice Paper, that I have received a communication, and have also read to-day in the Times a most interesting letter, from the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), to the effect that County Councils are by no means compelled, if these powers of compensation are given to the County Councils, to put them into force, or to use the money which they would receive from the State for the purpose of buying up licences if they do not feel so inclined. That, I think, is extremely satisfactory; but it does not, of course, afford an answer to the question which I am asking. I have just received another litter which is illustrative of the kind of argument used by some very well-meaning people. It is from a lady, and she says, that having read that I intended asking a question in Parliament upon the subject of whether drinking is greater where the number of public houses is largest, she wishes to mention what one of the greatest drinkers in her neighbourhood had said to her, namely, that he wished most of the public houses were closed, as he and others were too weak to resist so much temptation, as in that district there was a public house at almost every corner of the streets; and she adds—
    "It is the working classes who see and feel the evil of drunkenness, and who would hail any action which would reduce that evil."
    That is a class of argument which is very much us d, and which I confess I do not altogether hold with. But, my Lords, I will refer to another letter which I have received from the Chief Constable of Chester. It is very interesting indeed. He sands me printed statistics of what was the state of drunkenness in England in 1875. These statistics are very remarkable. It a pars that the cases of drunkenness in Durham were 16,700, or equal to 1 in 41 of the population. In Essex they were only 464, or equal to

    1389
    1 in 961. Those are the two extremes throughout England. Now as regards the number of public houses, Durham by no means stands at the head of the list. It stands 7th or 10th only. There is there one public house to every 210 of the population. In Essex there is one public house to every 160 of the population. That seems a very high average, and the numbers range from Cornwall where there is one public house to every 360 of the population down to Huntingdon where there is one in 104. At the end is appended this note—
    "In comparing the two lists it will be found that it by no means follows, as is popularly supposed, that drunkenness increases with the number of public houses in a district."
    My Lords, I adopt that statement, and venture to say that it does not appear to me to at all follow that that is the case: and I have only now to put the question to Her Majesty's Government, whether they are in possession of reliable statistics tending to prove that the amount of intemperance in districts under reasonably similar conditions varies in an approximate ratio according to the number of licensed houses in those districts?
    *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the information which is at our disposal I most willingly give to the noble Viscount. I only wish it had been carried up to a more recent date than it is. I entirely agree with those concluding words, that as far as any information on the subject goes there is nothing to prove that where there is a large number of licensed public houses there is a proportionately greater amount of intemperance. Unfortunately our Returns do not quite tally in regard to date. The first part of the noble Lord's question is in regard to the extent of intemperance. Upon that head the Return, which is called the Drunkenness Convictions, is only up to 1889, and includes the years from 1885 inclusive. It extends down to the 29th July, 1889, but the figures for the remainder of the year are not yet collected. The second part of the noble Viscount's question has reference to the Intoxicating Liquors (Licences) Return. That is made up to March, 1890, and, therefore, it is rather difficult to compare the
    1390
    two Returns. I think, however, if the noble Viscount will place one beside the other ho will be able to obtain approximately the information he requires in regard to any particular district he may be interested in. The number of convictions for drunkenness appears to be really the only available test that we have of the amount of intemperance in any specified districts. Taking those two Returns together, the ratio of the amount of drunkenness to the number of licensed houses in counties and boroughs can be calculated in the way I have suggested, allowing for the difference in the dates. There is, however, a second difficulty which I must mention to the noble Viscount. One of the Returns is compiled from the areas of the Petty Sessional Divisions, and the other from the Police Districts. I have no doubt, though I have no reason for saying so, that the noble Viscount had in his mind in asking the question that the information might, perhaps, assist the Committees of the County Councils if they should have to deal with proposals which the Government hope to pass into law. If that is so, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Viscount for putting the question; and I may say that being myself a County Councillor I have for my own information drawn out a few test cases from these two Returns which, if the noble Viscount desires, I shall be glad to show him and confer with him upon.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think we are indebted to the noble Viscount for moving for these Returns, which will, no doubt, be found very interesting. But I think it will be found very difficult to draw any conclusion from them. The Committee upon the Temperance Question, on which I sat some years ago, had the: whole subject before it; and if there was one thing more than another of which we were fully convinced it was that there was nothing to show a ratio of proportion between the number of public houses in a district and the amount of drunkenness existing there. In the first place, the convictions are not a certain guide, because their number depends upon the practice of the Magistrates and the vigilance of the police in the particular districts. It also appeared to us that there was something to be taken

    1391
    into consideration in regard to climate and latitude, or the health and habits of the people. It appeared clear that as you go North the amount of drunkenness increases—that a line could be drawn across England North of which the drunkenness was far greater than to the South, notwithstanding that other conditions appeared to be the same. I will take the case of the large ports in the North. As a rule, there is a much greater amount of drunkenness in those places than in the large ports in the South. But there, again, you must know the habits of the population before you can draw any conclusion. Certainly there have been some remarkable statistics, showing that although the number of public houses may be large the number of convictions for drunkenness may be small. In my own district in the town of Norwich there was shown to be a larger number of places for drinking in proportion to the population than in most other towns in England, and the convictions were fewer than in most other towns. But I am afraid we must not conclude from that that there was a great absence of drunkenness in Norwich. I only mention that to show how singular these statistics are. I think that might be a useful subject of consideration upon this interesting question in deciding the weight to be attributed to arguments which may be advanced before coming to any conclusion upon the matter.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [No.57.)
    Amendments (on Re-commitment) reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3ª on Thursday next.

    SETTLED LAND BILL.
    A Bill to amend the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1889—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1ª; and to be printed. (No. 99.)
    House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.