Lords Sitting of 27 July 1894

FINANCE BILL.—(No. 168.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, before this Motion is agreed to I wish to call your Lordships' attention to a statement which I understood was made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack yesterday evening. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say—perhaps I was wrong—that it was obvious your Lordships had no right to interfere with or to amend a Money Bill, inasmuch as a case had been decided in reference to the powers of a Second Chamber in one of the colonies. It strikes me that any Court of Law which should presume to lay down what are the privileges and what are not the privileges of your Lordships' House with regard to Money Bills would be incurring a very great responsibility, and a responsibility, as far as I know, never yet assumed by any Court of Justice in this Kingdom. I trust, therefore, that either I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord, or that his memory was not quite accurate in supposing that the privileges of your Lordships' House could be controlled or determined by the decision of any Court of Justice in this Kingdom.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, the decision or expression of opinion by the Privy Council to which the noble Duke has referred is not one which could bind anyone with reference to the rights, whatever they may be, of your Lordships' House, nor did it purport so to do. It was upon a point on which Her Majesty had to be advised by the Privy Council, and it became necessary to determine what, in the view of the Judicial Committee, in a case from one of the Australian Colonies, were the constitutional rights of the Upper Chamber in the colony. A question arose whether it was within the province of the Upper Chamber there to amend a Money Bill.
  1110
  That depended upon the opinion of the Judicial Committee as to whether it was within the constitutional right of this House to do so. Inasmuch as they came to the conclusion that the two Houses in the colony were in the same position as the two Houses here, it became absolutely necessary to form an opinion upon that point for the purpose of the decision. Their opinion was that it was not within the constitutional right of this House, and, therefore, not within the constitutional right of the Upper Chamber of the colony, to amend a Money Bill, the Upper Chamber, as I have said, being intended to bear the same relation to the Lower Chamber as the House of Lords does to the House of Commons. Of course, it was the province of the Privy Council to give an answer to the question by expressing that opinion; but that decision is not binding in any way upon this House, which is as free to act within its rights as before. I only cite the case as a conclusion come to after consideration by high judicial personages in a non-political matter. That was their decision; it may be right or it may be wrong; but whether right or wrong, it, of course, does not bind this House in the slightest degree.
  Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

LICENSING BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  LORD NORTONdrew the attention of the House to the existing law with regard to the forfeiture of licences to sell spirituous liquors; and presented an amending Bill. He said, the Bill was on a subject which had been on many occasions mooted in the House—the excess of licences to public-houses. He only proposed to ask for a First Reading, as it would be useless to expect to pass the Bill this Session through Parliament. A useful purpose would, however, be served by its being discussed during the Recess with a view to legislation next Session. Nobody would dispute that the number of public-houses was excessive throughout the Kingdom. Temptation was thereby offered for drunkenness, and a vicious competition resulted, leading to adulteration of the drink sold to the

  1111
  public. The cause of the excess was that licences had been granted arbitrarily upon no principle, and without any self-acting control of the relation between supply and demand. The Bills which had been presented on the subject were faulty in that respect, and, therefore, did not deal with the cause of the mischief. Two of them had emanated from the Episcopal Bench, greatly to its credit. The Bishop of London's Bill proposed to suppress arbitrarily the excess of licences by a reduction of one-fifth, with an assumed proportion of population in each locality, and that the owners of the suppressed houses should be compensated by those remaining unsuppressed. That principle your Lordships decided could not be admitted. The Bishop of Chester's Bill was based on the Gothenburg plan of Government supervision over the sale of spirituous liquors — the sale being undertaken by the Government itself. Their Lordships again decided against that proposal, considering that such a plan would be wholly unsuited to this country. In fact, its success was much disputed even in Norway, and there was very little encouragement for its adoption elsewhere. The Government had proposed a plan of Local Option, for which principle they seemed to have a great predilection as a general panacea for all evils, though it was difficult to imagine anything more likely to result than a battle royal over the question which houses were to be suppressed and which were not. This Bill which he was asking their Lordships to read a first time simply proposed that the existing law with regard to forfeiting licences persistently aliased should be more fairly carried out. It sought to make effective the only true check to excess of licensed public houses—which was the existing law—that repeated convictions of abuses should forfeit the licence to sell, and disqualify the premises so abused. Why was not the existing law carried out? Simply because the Magistrates refrained from inflicting the penalty when telling severely on often very costly premises which they had licensed. The Bill he was submitting to the House would remove that scruple and mitigating severity. It gave an alternative to absolute disqualification, by way of a fine, not exceeding £100, and
  1112
  taking sureties for better conduct in future. The rich owners of tied houses would feel this a moderate penalty for their employment of persistently offending servants, and they would easily be able to give surety for better service. Some of the lowest pothouses, making a wretched trade out of great national mischief, would rightly succumb, being unable to pay even a moderate fine, or find sureties for better conduct. In that way, and in that way only, an illegitimate supply would be suppressed, without any claim for compensation. The proposed fine was not to exceed £100, leaving it to be proportioned to the gravity of the conviction. The Bishop of London heartily agreed to support the Bill, and he asked that their Lordships should allow it to be read a first time in order that it might be discussed throughout the country during the Recess, and, subject to the views which might be expressed, introduced early next Session.
  Bill to amend the Licensing Act, 1872—Was presented by The Lord Norton.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the subject to which the noble Lord has called attention is admitted by all to be of great importance. There can be no doubt that any suggestion which would secure that licensed houses should be better kept, and that more strenuous efforts should be made to prevent drunkenness and breaches of the law certainly well deserve attention and support. Personally, I cannot help thinking that there has not been sufficient use—not the use which the Legislature intended—of the power of endorsing licences in cases where there have been convictions and consequent disqualification of the holders of the licences. There has been, I think, too great a tendency to renew the licences of houses that have been ill-conducted. That arises from the very natural indisposition of any tribunal to be seemingly too hard. Magistrates do not like to endorse a licence from a feeling, which it is impossible not to respect, that the result of so doing may be to deprive a person whose licence is endorsed of the opportunity of earning his livelihood. But I fear that the interest which the public have in securing that a licensed house is properly conducted has been

  1113
  somewhat kept out of view in extending this consideration to the licence-holder. There is a further evil which has become intensified of late years. In former times the licence-holder was the owner of the public-house, and there was in that fact a great security that the house would be properly conducted. But now these houses are largely managed by mere servants, who have not the strong inducement of personal interest to keep them within the law. And, when an offence is committed, the tendency is not to refuse a renewal of the licence, on the ground that it is hard that the brewer who owns the house should have his property reduced in value owing to the irregularities or misconduct of a manager or servant. The result must be, and has been, that the public have not the same security now for the proper conduct of the house that existed formerly. Therefore, I think any measure that will have the result of more strenuously enforcing the law, and making the owners of public-houses feel that the proper conduct of the house by their servants or managers is quite as important in their interest as if they were carrying on the business themselves, would be a very desirable amendment of the law. Without expressing any opinion on the proposals of the Bill, I am heartily in sympathy with the object which the noble Lord has in view.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 181.)

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 132.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether it was intended altogether to prevent chimney sweepers from giving their well-known cry in the streets in pursuit of their calling, as they were not prohibited from making themselves heard when they reached houses to which they had been summoned. Was the prohibition directed against their soliciting employment?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the wording of the clause explained its objects. Sweeps were not to use noisy
  1114
  instruments to the annoyance of the public, or to cause anyone else to do the said acts.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, with regard to "ringing a bell," he had heard that done by muffin-men, but never by sweeps. They appeared, at any rate, to be prohibited from shouting in the streets.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the clause meant that they were not to ring door bells to the annoyance of the inhabitants of houses.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENmoved to leave out, in line 16, all the words after "issue," to the end of the clause. It was a drafting Amendment rendered necessary by what had been done in the other House.
  Amendment moved, in line 16, to leave out all the words after "issue," to the end of the clause.—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked what would be the result of leaving out the words as regarded Ireland? There was no provision for that.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the words might be found to be unnecessary.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the state of the case was that it was not intended that the law should be interfered with, and it was undesirable to use words in the Bill which would lead to the supposition that the law was altered.
  Amendment negatived.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 182.)

NAUTICAL ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 179.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, the object of this Bill was to extend to the Scotch Courts the same advantages which English Courts already possessed of having nautical

  1115
  assessors to advise them in maritime cases. The Bill had been submitted to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and had his approval. It would be of great advantage to the Scotch Courts to have this privilege.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 180.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he moved the Second Reading of this Bill in no official capacity, but simply at the request of Members of the other House who had promoted it there. Its object was to extend to Irish towns and townships having Commissioners the same privilege of establishing public libraries as was enjoyed in England. By the Act of 1885 applying to public libraries in Ireland, the limit of population in towns to which the Act applied was 5,000. This Bill would enable 118 towns instead of 46 to have public libraries. Its provisions differed in no way from those at present in force in England except that an alternative was given to the Urban Authorities of bringing the Act into force, and a petition of 10 ratepayers would enable the Commissioners to take a poll of the inhabitants. In the other House the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, by whom it was carefully considered. It was approved by the Irish Office, and was backed by the names of Members representing such various sections of the House of Commons as Mr. Field, Mr. Carson, Mr. J. Redmond, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. W. Johnston, Sir J. Lubbock, and Mr. Arthur O'Connor.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, in face of the startling list of names given by the noble Lord, it would require a very daring man to get up in their Lordships' House and oppose the Second Reading of a Bill so backed. He certainly was
  1116
  not that man. An Irishman himself he fully recognised the significance of the union of names sometimes strongly opposed. The Bill had been introduced lately, and he had not yet been able to give it more than a cursory reading; but he hoped to read it in more detail later on, and trusted it would pass their Lordships' House without the enunciation of any serious difficulty.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 126.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
The Lord Welby added to the Joint Committee: And a Message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to add one of their Members to the said Joint Committee.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]—(No 166.)
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 171.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
PAROCHIAL ELECTORS (REGISTRATION ACCELERATION) BILL.—(No. 174.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Monday next, in order to its being dispensed with for that day's Sitting.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.