LICENSING SESSIONS BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 March 1901)

*The Lord Bishop of WINCHESTER
My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill of a studiously modest and unpretentious character, I think I may at least claim to be endeavouring to carry out the advice tendered to us by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister last year. It may be in the recollection of the House that in May last† I proposed a resolution—I admit, of a rather tar-reaching character —declaring in general terms that it was desirable that legislative effect should be given to the recommendations which that large and representative body who formed the Royal Commission had unanimously agreed upon as desirable. I spoke then, I am afraid, at undue length, but obviously with insufficient clearness. I was merely suggesting that legislation upon those lines was desirable, but I was understood by the noble Marquess to suggest that we should pitchfork on to the Statute-book a large number of perfectly crude and undigested recommendations, Such was not my intention, but if I expressed myself in terms open to such a construction I do not complain of having been met by a request that we should at least put into a practical from—in the form of Bills some of those many recommendations which appear to have the imprimatur of the whole Commission upon them. We did not meet with a welcome reception on the occasion, but the treatment we received was perhaps due to a misunderstanding of the intention which those for whom I speak have in view.
Our desire is to secure that some practical effect should be given to the large amount of persistent, self-denying labour which was devoted by really competent men for many years to this large and complicated subject. We were invited last year to put down in black and white the reforms we desire to see carried out; and I propose to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and afterwards to two others, each embodying one or two points at the most on which there is practical unanimity of opinion on the part of those who formed the Royal Commission. But in order to be quite clear I ought to say that I adhere distinctly to the view I have previously † See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxii., page 1004. 1501 expressed, that the matter, as a whole, cannot be adequately dealt with by any other authority than His Majesty's Government. The subject is far beyond the powers of any individual member of cither House of Parliament. Only with the information and the materials possessed by the Home Office, and with the authority of the Government behind them, can such reforms as are necessary be carried into law. We still cherish the hope that ultimately the Government will take the desired reforms in hand and carry them out successfully. If these little Hills with which I am concerned could lie absorbed in some larger measure proposed by the Government, with the firm determination of carrying it through Parliament, no one would rejoice more than I would. Of course, I do not forget that in the Kings Speech at the opening of the present session there were words which held out to us a somewhat nebulous and shadowy hope of legislation on this subject before the end of the Parliamentary year; still less do I forget the sympathetic speech which was delivered by the Home Secretary in another place, in which he gave his imprimatur to some, at least, of the proposals I am going to ask your Lordships to accept. The fact that he did so leads me to hope that we may possibly have saved the Home Office some little trouble by paving the way, and I shall be very glad to step aside and to abdicate ray own paternity if the Home Office will make themselves responsible for these proposals.
The Bill which I am now asking your Lordships to read a second time contains three practical points. Two have reference to the qualifications or disqualifications of the members of the licensing authority, and the third relates to the date when the brewster sessions are ordinarily held. As the law stands, a justice of the peace is disqualified from adjudicating on licensing matters if he is shown to have an interest in the trade in the district for which he is a magistrate. Strictly interpreted, this disqualification has been found to go further than was ever intended by those who were in the first instance responsible for imposing it. We have evidence of the difficulty which has arisen in different parts of England from the fact that shareholders in railway companies—which, as an in- 1502 finitesimal part of their business, own refreshment rooms—are thereby disqualified from voting on licensing questions. The matter was very prominently brought forward some years ago when the stipendiary magistrate at Leeds, regarding himself as disqualified in this way, submitted the question to the Home Office. The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted, and they decided that, inasmuch as the Leeds stipendiary magistrate held, as trustee, a few shares in the; Midland Railway, he was disqualified from sitting on the licensing committee of which he was chairman. So many magistrates in Leeds were similarly disqualified that the clerk to the justices has stated in evidence that he had sometimes to send all over the town to find a magistrate who could sit in licensing matters. The difficulty has universally been felt to be quite unnecessary, the disqualification in question lying wholly outside the intention of those who originally imposed it. Every member of the Royal Commission, with absolute unanimity, desired to see this disqualification removed, and one of the proposals of this Bill is that it should cease. An interest in the liquor trade is certainly rather remote which turns upon the fact that a man holds a few railway shares and that the railway company owns somewhere, a few refreshment rooms.
The other branch of the subject is a good deal more important. It seems that, while a man who holds a few shares in a railway company, even if it be only as trustee, is disqualified, others who are actively concernedin the administration of the licensing laws are not disqualified, but in the opinion of the Royal Commission should be. One set of men to whom I refer are those who belong to Watch Committees In boroughs; the other set of men are those who occupy the responsible position of magistrates' clerks. Watch Committees in boroughs are constituted under the Act of 1882. That Act provides that every borough council must appoint a Watch Committee consisting of not more than one-third of its own members, and that to the Watch Committee so appointed shall he entrusted the control and government of the police of the borough. The Watch Committee has an absolute right, specifically given in the Act, of suspending or dismiss- 1503 ing police, and the police, of course, recognise throughout that they are dependent entirely on the good will of the Watch Committee under whom their whole work is carried on. There is a difference of custom in various parts of England as to how f far the Watch Committees interfere actively with the prosecutions undertaken by the police: but in all cases the police are under the control of the Watch Committees, who have the power of suspending or dismissing them for inefficiency or for inadequate discharge of duty. Some of the members of these Committees are connected with the liquor trade, but no disqualification is placed on them in consequence. The evidence that was before the Royal Commission on the subject was wide and far-reaching. It is perfectly certain that it has been felt, the land through, that in these boroughs there is, to say the least, a grave peril that the police may discharge their duties in a very different way from that in which they would otherwise discharge them when they know-that on the Watch Committee are members whose houses would be impugned if prosecutions were carried out.
I must trouble your Lordships for a few moments with one or two examples of evidence given on this point. I will choose towns in different parts of England. Take the boroughs of Leeds, Nottingham, Wakefield, Derby, and Portsmouth. With regard to Leeds the Watch Committee appoints a discipline subcommittee whose special duty it is to look after the police. A brewer—I am quoting from the evidence—is chairman of that subcommittee, and in that capacity naturally has more to do than any other single man with the punishment and advance merit of the police and with the conduct of the force, from the Chief Constable downwards. His firm [I am quoting the words of the witness] own a large number of licensed houses in the city and have other interests as mortgagees. The knowledge of his position cannot but hamper the action of the police. I do not put it any higher than that. As to Nottingham, the coroner of the borough said— The police are very prone to keep a 'blind eye' upon houses belonging to the brewers who are members of the Watch Committee. The Chief Constable of Wakefield said that if he had suspicions regarding certain 1504 houses, and were to mention to the Watch Committee that he thought of instituting a prosecution, the whole thing would (to quote his words) be "all over the town" before he had time to prepare his evidence. At Derby the chairman of the Watch Committee owns four licensed houses. The committee-has two other trade members, and one other member is a brewery director, while out of its eleven members four are justices. In Portsmouth there are seventeen members of the Watch Committee, and five of the seventeen are directly or indirectly interested in the trade. I could easily multiply evidence of that kind. These facts were given in evidence taken a year or two ago, and possibly since then alterations may have taken place. Now, my Lords, it is of course conceivable that the members of Watch Committees may be in every case able to dismiss all bias. It is possible, though I think it is even less likely, that the police may believe that there is no such bias on the part of their master's, and may lie prepared to take firm and definite action against houses which are actually owned by persons under whom they are acting. But that is expecting a good deal; and the Commission were practically unanimous in recommending that no man should serve on a Watch Committee who had the same kind of interest in the liquor trade-as would have disqualified him from sitting as a justice. In the memorial circulated by the Trade Association to your Lordships House attention is called to this matter, and it is pointed out that, whereas a justice who is connected with the local trade is disqualified merely from acting in licensing cases, this Bill would disqualify a licensed trader from silting upon a Watch Committee at all. That is perfectly true, but if we are to do what the Commission asks, it is inevitable. What we object to is the placing of the police under the direct control of members of the brewing interest, knowing that it must inevitably, as one witness after another has said, lead them to "turn a blind eye" upon the delinquencies of public-houses.
The disqualification of magistrates' clerks is the next branch of the subject. I suppose there is no body of men in the kingdom who are more rightly respected 1505 than magistrates' clerks. Their position is one of very high responsibility, from the advice that they have frequently to give to magistrates who are not themselves qualified to know all the intricacies of the law. It is clear that a justices' clerk, who is in any way connected with the liquor trade is exposed to a very real, I will not say temptation to, but imputation of, bias when the case of a firm with which he is professionally connected comes before the body which he is called upon to advise. It is sometimes said that, after all, magistrates' clerks have only to advise on questions of strict law, and that they have not the opportunity of introducing any bias. But I should like on that point to call attention to the evidence which was given by Mr. George Candy, Q.C., the eminent counsel, who had a unique position in this matter, being accustomed, as your Lordships know, to hold a brief time after time, all over England, on behalf of Licensed Victuallers' Associations. In his evidence he speaks emphatically of the influence of the justices' clerk as paramount in cases which come before the justices. He says— I have taken the view generally that the Court is guided by the legal adviser, and I have found it answer. The inference is obvious. It may be asked, Do magistrates' clerks, as a rule, have an interest in the liquor trade? A few days ago I had an opportunity of talking to two prominent solicitors, each with a large country practice, and neither of them particularly interested in Temperance reform. One of them said in the strongest terms, and the other in a somewhat less definite form— I should always advise any client of mine who was largely interested in the liquor trade to place some, at least, of his business with the clerks to the justices. It is well he should do so, and it is practically the universal custom. I will not, however, rest on anonymous testimony of that sort, but will give one or two examples which were before the Royal Commission. It was stated in evidence that— The clerk to the magistrates of Maidstone is the solicitor to a brewery and acts for that brewery in the adjoining division, while the clerk to the magistrates of that adjoining division is solicitor to another brewery, and he acts in Maidstone for his brewery. 1506 I think it would be difficult to imagine anything more likely to raise suspicion as to the impartiality of the advice given by the magistrates' clerks than evidence of that kind. A Burnley solicitor gave evidence as to a Burnley justices' clerk, who appeared as solicitor for Burnley brewers in adjoining districts, and then, at other times, sat in Burnley and advised the justices when the Burnley cases of the same brewers came before them. With regard to Brighton, a solicitor practising there—Mr. H. Prince—said: I have seen magistrates' clerks at one Bench instructing counsel for a licence or opposing a licence, as the case may be, or applying, and I have seen the same magistrates' clerk sitting at his own Bench when relatives of the same magistrates' clerk are applying at that Bench, of which he is magistrates' clerk, in the same way. I think that is liable to create a wrong impression. I think so too; and I ask your Lord ships to give effect to a provision which will render that impression less likely, at all events, to arise. In an ideal state of things, what everyone would desire woud be that a justices' clerk should have no private practice at all. In our largo boroughs that is very frequently the case. In country districts, of course, it is practically impossible so to arrange, if we are to secure the services of the best men as magistrates' clerks; but, in the interest of the public, we ought to secure that justices should not find themselves in the position of having to be guided by the advice of clerks in regard to cases in which those clerks have a constant professional interest. I therefore ask that this provision of the Bill may become law. The wording of the clause is obviously a difficult matter. I do not in the least profess to say that the best conceivable wording has been arrived at. On that point I am quite prepared to accept any reasonable Amendment which may be proposed by those who, from legal or other knowledge, are better able to judge what should be its right form, and I hope we may rely upon the assistance of the high legal luminaries who adorn your Lordships' House. I ought, I think, just to add that so obviously necessary is this reform with regard to magistrates' clerks, that in the memorial circulated yesterday by the Trade no attempt is made to object to this proposal, and I venture to hope that it is a point 1507 upon which the whole House will be with me.
The only remaining point is the question of the date of the licensing sessions. It is a curious fact that no one seems able to explain, why the Act of 1828 provided that the licensing sessions for Surrey and Middlesex should be field in March, and the licensing sessions for the rest of England in August and September. The evidence before the Commission on this point was not very large, but it was sufficient to convince the whole Commission that a change would be desirable, and that the licensing sessions throughout England should be held in March. It had been found practically impossible in some cases to obtain attendance at the autumn sessions. I will quote the case of Nottingham. The clerk to the Nottingham borough justices said— I think everyone will agree with me that the period of holding the annual licensing sessions is most inconvenient. By law we are hound to hold the first sessions between the 20th of August and the 14th September, and the adjourned sessions during the month of September. My experience is that during August and the first half of September it is almost impossible to get business carried through, and that is becoming more so every year. I hope that this change will lie allowed to be made by the present Rill. I desire to say again in conclusion that what I now ask for is merely a Second Reading. I desire the House to affirm the principle of the Bill, but I am perfectly ready to listen to, and, if possible, accept any Amendments in. regard to the details of this and the other Bill for which I am to-night responsible. That something of the kind is urgently wanted is now beyond dispute. A Bishop whose duties lead him to be constantly moving about over a wide area is better able perhaps than some other man to judge of popular opinion on such a question, Wherever I go I find a feeling that some legislation of this kind is imperatively necessary, and will not brook delay; and I venture to hope that the Bill will meet with no opposition at your Lordships' hands.

§ LORD BELPER
My Lords, I am sure no one in your Lordships' House will 1508 take any exception either to the tone of the right rev. Prelate's speech or to his description, of the Bill as a modest and unpretending one. The Bill, as he stated, is confined to three proposals. With the first proposal, which deals with the disqualification of magistrates owing to their holding railway shares, your Lordships are thoroughly conversant. This disqualification has caused the greatest inconvenience in all parts of the country, and two or three years ago a measure removing the disqualification passed your Lordships' House with general approval. The proposal to alter the date of the licensing sessions is one which will probably meet with an equally unanimous reception. It is impossible to conceive the reason why anyone could have fixed on a time of the year so inconvenient as August and September, when so many business men are away on their holidays.
As to the second clause, which imposes fresh disqualifications, the right rev. Prelate must excuse me if I decline to enter into the question in detail; but, though this is one of the points recommended by both the Majority and Minority Reports. I do not think that the recommendations of the Commission go quite so far as the proposals in the clause. The right rev. Prelate himself pointed out that whilst magistrates were only disqualified from sitting on licensing matters, this clause would altogether disqualify those gentlemen from serving on watch committees. The clause would also prevent the appointment of a gentleman who might be highly qualified as clerk of the peace or clerk to the justices if he were in any way connected with a brewery, or even had a partner who was employed in a brewery in any capacity. The clause will certainly require serious consideration in Committee. With regard to the general principles embodied in the Bill. I am instructed by the Home Secretary to give his general assent to the Second Reading of the Bill. My right hon. friend wishes me to state that he is anxious to deal with these points, which, are practically of a non-contentious character, in a reasonable and practical way. But the position is this: the Home Secretary has now in preparation a Bill to deal with these very matters which 1509 are the subject of this and the succeeding Bill, and he hopes to find an opportunity of introducing it in the other House; and, if he can do that, it will. I think, be seen that his proposals not only deal with most of the points raised in these Bills, but will also be somewhat wider in their scope, so as to include some points not touched in the measure before the House.
Under these circumstances, the question is how far it would be desirable for the Government to move Amendments to these Bills in this House. I think it would possibly be more convenient for the Government to be able to explain their own proposals in the other House, and to deal with the whole subject when the right rev. Prelate's Bills reach the House of Commons, if their own Bill is then in a position to be discussed. As I have already said, some Amendments will he required; and if, therefore, the Government put no Amendments on the Paper in this House, they reserve full power to deal with the Bill in another

§ EARL SPENCER
My Lords. I think I may congratulate the right rev. Prelate on the step in advance which he has made by the introduction of this Bill. We all deeply regretted the non possumus given last year by the noble Marquess opposite to the general proposal that this matter should be dealt with.

§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY)
Not this particular Bill.

§ EARL SPENCER
The right rev. Prelate did not introduce a Bill last year, but he proposed a general resolution that legislation was desirable on the lines of the able Report of the Royal Commission. This year we have gone a step in advance, and I think that everybody who has at heart the necessity of dealing with the gigantic subject must rejoice that at all events we have, got the Government's consent to the Second Reading of this Bill, small though it may be. As to the Government proposals, a great deal will depend upon when the Government Bill is introduced. Probably, if it is soon introduced, it would be to the advantage of reform in this question if the right rev. Prelate postponed the consideration of 1510 his measure in Committee, but if the Government Bill is not to be introduced for a very long time, the only course will be for the right rev. Prelate to press on his Bill.