BILL PRESENTED. (Hansard, 27 July 1894)

§ LORD NORTON

drew 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.

§ 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.