Lords Sitting of 17 May 1901

EARL OF ARRAN
Ordered and directed, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Arran to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland. And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

Horley District Gas.

Long Eaton Gas.

Tees Valley Water Board.

Wells Corporation Water.

Glasgow and Renfrew District Railway Transfer.

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:

Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [H.L.].

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S WATER AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL.
  RODGERS' PATENT BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 8th March and 2nd May last discharged; and Bill committed.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition there to having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 3rd and 6th May last discharged; and Bill committed for Monday next.
  CARDIFE RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Committee (on Re commitment) to meet on Monday next; Leave given to the Committee, if they think fit, to insert certain agreed amendments.
DERWENT VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
  THAMES DEEP-WATER DOCK BILL
  Read 2a, and committed.
POULTON-LE-FYLDE GAS BILL [H.L.]
  CHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  SOUTHPORT WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.]

    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL [H.L.]
    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

    HONLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.
    Read 3a and passed.
ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.

    CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
    KETTERING URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON RIVERSIDE FISH MARKET BILL.
    RICHMOND GAS BILL.
    STROUD GAS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

GRANGEMOUTH WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  SCOTTISH PROVIDENT INSTITUTION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL [H.L.]
    FOLKESTONE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
    Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
    Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 81.)
  ARDROSSAN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (No 82.)

    AYR HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 83.)
    HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 84.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland)
    400
    Act, 1899, Section 9) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee. Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    No. 2595. Japan.
    No. 2596. France (Brest).
    No. 2597. Italy (Lombardy).
    No. 2598. Spain (Bilbao and District).
    No. 2599. Greece (the Cyclates).
    No. 2600. France (Nice).
    No. 2601. China (Hankow).

    Annual statement of navigation and shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1900.

    ARMY.
    Return of Military Forces in South Africa, 1899–1901 (in continuation of [Cd. 462.]).
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
    Reports by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent—

    I. Of the Pinner Parish Council, in the case of the Pinner Gas Provisional Order.

    II. Of the Horsham Urban District Council, in the case of the Horsham Gas Provisional Order.

    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NEW BILLS.
    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Ireland, was presented by the Earl of Mayo; read 1a and to be printed. (No. 77.)

    CONVOCATIONS OF THE CLERGY BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill to declare the law in regard to the reform of the Convocations of Canter-

    401
    bury and York, and to make provision for joint sittings of the said Convocations, was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 78.)

  HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I should like to explain my own position with reference to the measure of which I have hitherto been the sponsor. Whether I am to remain sponsor or not I do not very clearly understand. Your Lordships may remember that when, two months ago, I moved the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed an earnest hope that it might be possible for His Majesty's Government to take over the Bill, be responsible for it, and practically make it their own. I am exceedingly glad to find that the Government have found it possible to do this, and, though there are only a few lines remaining of the actual wording of the Bill I introduced, the changes are changes of form rather than of substance, and, on the whole, the measure as redrafted is, in my judgment, improved and not injured. Speaking generally, I desire to say that I gratefully accept the changes which have been made in the Bill, and especially the additional clauses inserted by the Government, though there are one or two verbal points upon which criticism may be desirable. It may not unnaturally be asked, however, why, if these changes and additions are regarded, as they are, by myself and those responsible for the old Bill as improvements, why were they not inserted by us in the first instance? I think I made that point clear on the Second Reading stage. Our intention was to follow the advice given, and to produce a short Bill, and to have burdened it with the additional clauses now contained in the Government Amendments would have been, for a private Member, to ruin the prospects of the measure. Again, some of these Amendments and additions are of a kind which no one could well draft unless he had the information and the other
  402
  facilities possessed by the Home Office. As they now stand I welcome them, and I trust that the Bill in its amended form, roughly speaking, may become law during the present session.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I am sure the House ought to be grateful to the right rev. Prelate for having brought this question forward in the practical shape of a Bill that can be discussed. I am glad to hear that His Majesty's Government are disposed to take charge of the Bill, and to improve it as far as it needs improving. I would call attention, however, to one fact in connection with the Bill, because I think that a new practice is being introduced which is inconvenient to the House and to the country. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that the proposal of the Government is to strike out the whole of the first clause except the words "where a person is convicted," and to insert a perfectly new clause. The whole of Clause 2, with the exception of the words "where the husband of a married woman is an habitual drunkard," are to be deleted, and a totally new clause introduced. So it is with the third and fourth clauses. By their Amendments, the Government have left only about five lines of the original Bill intact. I think your Lordships will see the inconvenience of this practice. The original Bill has been before the country, has been discussed at quarter sessions and elsewhere, and now it is proposed in Committee practically to frame a new measure. It would be very much better if the Government had introduced a Bill of their own, and had not cut out the whole of the right rev. Prelate's Bill and substituted something entirely different. It would be most inconvenient if this practice became general.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I have hesitated, under the circumstances, to put down any Amendment to this Bill, but I hope that His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of applying the Bill to Ireland. I think it would be of great benefit there.
  LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: I should like to support from this side of the House the suggestion of the noble Earl. In my judgment, there is no reason why the Bill should not be applied to Ireland. The law ought to be the same in both countries, and I hope His Majesty's Government will consider the suggestion.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in reply to the remarks of the right rev. Prelate and my noble friend Lord Cross, I will explain the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. It will be in the recollection of your Lordships that this subject was referred to in the King's Speech, and on behalf of the Home Secretary I have to say that in accordance with that announcement a Bill was prepared which my right hon. friend was anxious to introduce in the other House. When the Bishop of Winchester introduced his two Bills I then explained on behalf of the Government that the Government would accept the Bills with certain modifications, and that the Bills would be made not only to cover the ground which was covered by the right rev. Prelate's Bill, but in many respects would go considerably further. I also stated that, as far as procedure permitted, the Government were very anxious to introduce a Bill in the other House. Since that time the Home Secretary has not been able to get an opportunity of introducing the Bill, and I now acknowledge the courtesy shown by the right rev. Prelate in postponing the consideration of his Bill, so as to allow the proposals of the Government to be laid before Parliament as well as his own. But the state of public business not permitting the Government to introduce their own measure, it was decided, after full consideration, that it would be the most desirable and convenient course to graft the recommendations of the Government Bill on the right rev. Prelate's Bill applying to the same subject. It is quite true that the Amendments which I shall have to move practically cut out a great proportion of the right rev. Prelate's measure.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: They cut out the whole of it.
  LORD BELPER: But they do not affect the principle of the Bill. It would
  404
  have been quite possible to move Amendments which would have introduced the proposals of the Government without cutting out so much of the Bill as is now proposed; but, after consideration, the Home Secretary decided that it would be better to make the Bill a complete one, and to draft it in such a way as to carry out fully his proposals. The Amendments do not in any way touch the principle of the Bill. They alter the procedure in some respects and make it more complete; but, in addition, the Government propose clauses to which they attach very great importance, and which were not contained in the right rev. Prelate's Bill. If your Lordships adopt the Amendments which I have to make, it is the intention of the Government to take up the Bill in the other House as a Government measure and press it forward as their own. It does not he in my province to express any opinion as to whether or not it would have been better that the Bill should have been, reintroduced as a fresh Bill. All I can say is, that I shall be most happy to give every opportunity for Amendments to be moved to the Bill at a subsequent stage. I hope the House will agree that the course which the Government have pursued has at all events been in the true interests of the passing of the measure, and that the chances of this Bill will be more favourable in another place than would be the case if the Government had waited till a later period in the session to introduce a Bill of their own.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount as to the inconvenience of the course followed by His Majesty's Government in their alterations of the Bill, which is most unusual, very remarkable, and which should not be accepted as a precedent. In the gracious Speech from the Throne His Majesty, on the recommendation of His Ministers, no doubt, stated that a Bill on this subject was to be introduced by his Government, but instead of introducing that Bill His Majesty's Government have entirely remodelled—not, perhaps, in principle, but in detail—the Bill of the right rev. Prelate. How will this Bill be described? Will it be called the right rev. Prelate's Bill or the Bill of the Government? I wish to know why the noble Marquess should not be content

  405
  with his own lay garments instead of assuming the lawn sleeves of the Episcopal Bench. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office said the Home Secretary would not have time to introduce the measure in another place.
  LORD BELPER: I said he had not yet had the opportunity.
  EARL SPENCER: It may be difficult for the Government to introduce a Bill in the other House; but that difficulty does not exist here. In the Speech from the Throne it is never stated in which House the Bill is to be introduced. I think it would have been much more dignified and more in accordance with precedent if the Government had introduced a Bill of their own instead of merely altering the Bill of the Bishop of Winchester.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The view of the noble Earl is somewhat punctilious. I have some difficulty in arguing with him, because I do not know precisely of what he complains. The point of difference seems to be very insignificant; and if the noble Earl wishes for an apology I will give him a bushel of them. I have no particular prejudice in favour of the course which has been pursued, though under the circumstances it seemed the more convenient one. I will acknowledge that I rather wished to push into the foreground the fact that, by a strange chance, I was able to find myself in agreement with the right rev. Prelate. It was rather a satisfaction to know that for once we could, if I may use a vulgar phrase, pull in the same boat. But if the noble Earl wishes for any reparation, I shall be very glad to give him it; and perhaps he would like some entry made upon the journals of this House to point out to future generations that this course which we have adopted is not to be taken as a precedent. I do not think it will have much effect, either upon the probability of this measure taking its place on the Statute-book or upon the destinies of His Majesty's subjects, if it is placed there. Beyond this expression of opinion I find no material for continuing the discussion with the noble Earl.
  On Question agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1:—
  LORD BELPER: The main difference between the clause as proposed in the Bill and the words of the Amendment is that the Bill confines the power of making an order of detention to courts of summary jurisdiction, while the Amendment follows the scheme of the Inebriates Act of 1898, and would enable any court before whom the offender is tried to make an order and send the notice. The clause at present contains a list of offences connected with drunkenness, on conviction of which, after a specified number of times, an order may be made declaring the offender to be an habitual drunkard. The amended clause confines the order to cases in which the court is of opinion that an order of detention could be made under Section 1 or 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898. It has been thought much more convenient to adhere, in a new matter of this sort to the limits of that Act, and not to make a new definition of the term "habitual drunkard." The Bill proposed that the court should determine within what area the offender should not be served by licence-holders. The Amendment does not specify any area, but leaves the serving of notices to licence-holders to the discretion of the police. The Bill provided for the serving of notices to holders of both on and off licences; but the amended clause will be confined to on-licences only. The Bill proposed a penalty for the publican who served an habitual drunkard; and the amended clause will extend the penalty also to the habitual drunkard who asks to be served. But, practically, the clause in the Bill and the Amendment of the Government proceed on the same lines.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, to leave out from 'convicted,' to the end of the clause, and to insert' of any offence under circumstances in which the court is of opinion that an order of detention could be made under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Inebriates Act, 1898, then, whether an order of detention is made or not, the court shall order that notice of the conviction, with such particulars as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, be sent to the police authority (within the meaning of the

  407
  Police Act, 1890) for the police area in which the court is situate.
  "(2) Where a court in pursuance of this Act orders notice of a conviction to be sent to a police authority, the court shall inform the convicted person that the notice is to be so sent; and—

  (a) if the convicted person within three years after the date of the conviction purchases or attempts to purchase any intoxicating liquor at any licensed premises on which intoxicating liquor is authorised to be consumed he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, for the first offence, twenty shillings, and for any subsequent offence forty shillings; and

  (b) if the holder of any licence authorising the consumption of intoxicating liquor upon the premises within that period knowingly sells or allows any person to sell intoxicating liquor to, or for the consumption of, any such person, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, for the first offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence in respect of the same person twenty pounds.'"—(Lord Belper.)

  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: There is no difference between the views of the noble Lord and my own as to the substance of the clause, but there are one or two verbal Amendments which I should like to see made. I imagine that it would be better that verbal questions should be reserved for the Standing Committee, and I propose to take that course.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  LORD BELPER: The object of this clause is to make habitual drunkenness a ground on which a separation order may be granted. The clause as it at present stands provides that where the husband of a married woman is an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Act, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, shall apply in like manner as if he had been guilty of persistent cruelty to her. While the clause in the Bill only gives protection to the wife, the Amendment will extend the protection to the husband.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 27, to leave out from 'drunkard' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'as defined by Section three of
  408
  the Habitual Drunkards Act, 1879, the married woman shall be entitled to apply for an order under the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, and that Act shall apply accordingly.
  (2) Where the wife of a married man is am habitual drunkard as defined by Section three of the Habitual Drunkards Acts, 1879, the married man shall be entitled to apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order under this sub-section, and on any such application the court may make one or more orders containing all or any of the following particulars:—

  (a) A provision that the applicant be no longer bound to cohabit with his wife (which provision while in force shall have the effect in all respects of a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty);

  (b) A provision for the legal custody of any children of the marriage;

  (c) A provision that the applicant shall pay to his wife personally, or for her use to any officer of the court or other person on her behalf, such weekly sum not exceeding two pounds as the court, having regard to the means both of the applicant and his wife, consider reasonable;

  (d) A provision for payment by the applicant or his wife, or both of them, of the costs of the court, and such reasonable costs of either parties as the court may think fit.

  Subject to the foregoing provisions, the Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895, shall apply to an application and order under this sub-section in like manner as it applies to an application and order under that Act, except that for references to a married woman and her husband shall be substituted references to a married man and his wife.'"—(Lord Belper).
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The difference between the clause and the Amendment is very large; but the; promoters of the Bill not only accept, but most cordially welcome, the proposal to give protection to a husband who has the misfortune to have a wife who is an habitual drunkard. The addition is eminently right, and I have had letters from every part of the country asking for it. The proposal was not included in the Bill simply because it was beyond my wit or power, with the limited materials at my command, to devise phraseology which would carry out such an amendment of the law. I am exceedingly glad the clause has been extended by His Majesty's Government.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  LORD BELPER: This clause authorises the arrest of any person found drunk while having the charge of a child under the age of six years. By the Amendment the age is extended to seven years, and the word "apparently" is introduced, because there would be no means of ascertaining at the time of arrest whether the child was under the age of seven or not. Of course, before any punishment was inflicted the age would have to be proved. It is thought desirable to give this power of arrest, even though it may turn out that the child was not under the age of seven.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 3, page 2, line 33, to leave out after 'child' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'apparently under the age of seven years, he may be apprehended, and shall, if the child is under that age, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding forty shillings, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding one month. (2) If the child appears to the court to be under the age of seven, the child shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary is proved. (3) The offence under this section shall be included in the list of offences in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the Amendment is adopted the clause will read: If any person is found drunk in any highway or other public place while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years "he" may be apprehended. Is it intended to limit this penalty to males? The clause as it now stands refers to both sexes. I should like to ask a further question—namely, What will become of the child while the offender in undergoing imprisonment?
  LORD BELPER: I understand that the terms of the clause will include females in charge of children as well as males.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Surely "he" does not include a female?
  LORD BELPER: Under the General Interpretation Act "he" includes "she." I am not prepared to answer the noble Earl's second question, but I suppose
  410
  provision will be made for the child in the ordinary way.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD BELPER: The object of the new clause standing in my name is to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, who suggested that there should be power of arrest in the case of a person who is merely drunk in a public place, and not, as now, only in the case of a person who is drunk and disorderly. Under the Act of 1872 it is an offence for a person to be drunk in a public place, but he can only be prose-cut by means of a summons. This clause; will give power of arrest.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause after Clause 3, If a person is found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, and appears to be incapable of taking care of himself, he may be apprehended and proceedings may be taken against him for the offence."—Lord Belper.)
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  LORD BELPER: There has been some question as to whether persons convicted of drunkenness can be required to give security for good behaviour. Sir John Bridge, when chief magistrate of the metropolis, occasionally used this power with very great advantage, but other magistrates have taken a different view and have not considered that the power, existed. This clause has been introduced to make that matter clear.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, 'Where a person is convicted of any offence mentioned in the list of offences contained in the First Schedule to the Inebriates Act, 1898, as amended by this Act, the court may, either in addition to or in substitution for any other penalty, order the offender to enter into a recognisance and find sureties to be of good behaviour."—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  LORD BELPER: The next Amendment carries out the recommendation of both parties on the Royal Commission. Its object is to shift, to a certain extent,

  411
  the onus of proof. At present the prosecution has to show that the licensed person did not take all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises; but the new clause will compel the licensed person to show that he took all reasonable steps.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause, 'Where a licensed person is charged with permitting drunkenness on his premises, and it is proved that any person was drunk on his premises, it shall lie on the licensed person to prove that he and the persons employed by him took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD HENEAGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord what he means by the words "took all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on the premises." Does he mean that the licensed person must prove that he did not serve the man with liquor after he believed him to be drunk, or that he did his best to have him removed? The clause might work very unjustly. There are a number of small public-houses and beer houses in the country in the hands of labourers who are at work all day. How is the wife, in such a case, to prove that she took all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness on her premises if the police look in and find a man drunk there?
  LORD BELPER: I think it would be "very indiscreet on my part to attempt to define the word "reasonable" in all cases. The very object of using the word is that the justices before whom the case is brought may form their own opinion as to whether the steps taken "were reasonable or not.
  On Question, new clause agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  LORD BELPER: It is the universal opinion that the existing system of endorsing convictions on licences has not proved successful, and my Amendment to Clause 4, by doing away with that system, gives effect to a recommendation of both parties on the Royal Commission. The Amendment proposes that a register shall be kept of all convictions, which shall always be before the magistrates when they have to come to a decision. Where
  412
  a licensed person is convicted before any court of any offence committed by him as such, it will be the duty of the clerk of the licensing justices to enter notice of every such conviction on the register, and on any application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence, the licensing justices are to have regard to any entries in the register of convictions relating either to the person by whom, or to the premises in respect of which, the licence is to be held. There is a further proviso that if the number of registered convictions exceeds five within a period of five years, the licensing justices shall, if they grant the licence, record their reasons for so doing, and the police authority are given power to oppose the confirmation of the licence. I think it will be agreed that this is likely to work more fairly than the present system.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 4, page 2, line 38, to leave out from 'convicted' to the end of the clause, and to insert 'before any court of any offence committed by him as such, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the licensing justices to enter notice of every such conviction in the register of licences kept by him, and if the clerk of the court is not the clerk of the licensing justices, he shall forthwith send notice of the conviction to the clerk of the licensing justices.
  (2) On any application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence the licensing justices shall have regard to any entries in the register of convictions relating either to the person by whom, or to the premises in respect of which, the licence is to be held.
  (3) If the number of registered convictions relating to the person or to the premises, or either of them, exceeds five within a period of five years immediately preceding the licensing sessions, the licensing justices shall, if they grant, renew, or transfer the licence, record in writing on the register their reasons for so doing, and the police authority (within the meaning of the Police Act, 1890) for the police area in which the licensing sessions are held, may, in the case of a new licence, oppose the confirmation of the licence, and, in the case of renewal or transfer, appeal against the decision of the licensing justices.
  (4) It shall not be necessary to record any conviction on a licence.'"—(Lord Belper.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I think Sub-section 3 of the proposed new clause requires careful consideration. As it stands, it would seem to imply that a new licence might be given to a man who had been convicted four times, or a licence renewed to a public-house which had offended in a similar manner. I venture to think that no existing

  413
  bench of magistrates, without this clause, would think of granting or renewing a licence under those circumstances. But by this Amendment it would seem that five previous convictions are to be regarded as necessary in order to make it undesirable for the magistrates to grant the licence. Speaking of the clause as a whole, I welcome it with all my heart. One very important provision in the original clause, to which the noble Lord has not referred, is cut out by the Amendment—namely, the section which provides that—
  "When the court has power under this Act to impose a fine of twenty pounds on a licensed person, the court may, in its discretion, instead of imposing a fine, suspend the licence for any period not exceeding three months."
  I am quite aware that that would be a very drastic measure, but the majority as well as the minority of the Royal Commission distinctly recommended that the power of suspending licences should be given.
  EARL STANHOPE: I hope that my noble friend will agree to the omission of Sub-section 3, which does not improve the existing law, and is liable to misinterpretation. It would imply that the magistrates could not refuse the licence unless there had been five convictions.
  LORD HENEAGE: I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There are several objections to the sub-section. If a publican committed an offence once a year for four years, and then missed a year, he would escape scot-free, because he would not have been convicted five times in five years. The number of five offences is, I think, too many, and if the clause is to remain in the Bill, I shall move to substitute three. It is a very inconvenient sub-section, and I think the Government would do well to drop it.
  LORD BELPER: The objections of the noble Lord opposite are based upon a misconception of the meaning of the clause. The object of the clause is to do away with the endorsement of licences, and to provide that there shall be a record of the conviction in the register of licences. The matter will be considered, as at present, on each occasion, but if the magistrates do grant the licence after
  414
  five offences they are to explain their reasons for so doing, and there is to be an appeal against their decision. I will consider the suggestion of my noble friend Earl Stanhope as to the omission of the sub-section at a later stage of the Bill, but for the present I must ask your Lordships to pass the clause in its existing form.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I do not know whether it is intended to do away with the endorsement of licences altogether.
  LORD BELPER: The clause says so.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: If the noble Lord will look at the clause he will see that it provides that, where a man is convicted of an offence, it shall be the duty of the clerk to enter notice of the conviction in the register; but, with regard to the endorsement of the licence, all the clause says is that "It shall not be necessary to record any conviction on a licence." I do not gather that the endorsement of licences is thereby altogether abolished. I think it would be better to omit Sub-section 3 now, and bring up a new provision at a later stage. Under this sub-section five convictions would be necessary before the licensing justices could consider the matter.
  LORD BELPER: Not at all. In every case they consider the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: According to my reading of Sub-section 3, if would require five offences in the five years immediately preceding the licensing sessions in order to do away with the licence.
  LORD BELPER: Not at all.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Perhaps I am wrong, but I should certainly interpret it in that way.
  LORD BELPER: I am perfectly willing to consider the matter between this and the next stage of the Bill, but I cannot agree to cut out the sub-section now. With regard to the omission of the section giving power to s spend licences, I have to inform the right rev.

  415
  Prelate that, in the opinion of the Government, the original proposal was impracticable.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
  LORD BELPER: The Bill is not extended to Scotland and Ireland because, as the licensing laws in those countries differ in many respects from those of England, it is thought more expedient that they should be dealt with separately.
  Moved, "That the Bill, as amended' be reported to the House."—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should like to ask whether the Government will how take charge of the measure. As introduced by the Bishop of Winchester the Bill consisted of four operative clauses and sixty-eight lines. Of those sixty-eight but four and a half remain, and they are merely the preambles of the four clauses. In these circumstances I wish to know whether the Government will accept it as a Government Bill in this House, and give it the advantages of a Government Bill in the other House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know what precisely are the advantages that would accrue to the Bill if it was called a Government Bill in this House. I quite agree, however, that there are distinct advantages to be gained by adopting that course in the House of Commons, and it is the intention, if the Bill is passed by your Lordships, that it shall be treated in the other House as a Government Bill.
  On Question, motion agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 79.]

  LICENSING SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, in moving that the House
  416
  resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I should like to point out that, although the sheet of Amendments is a small one, and the apparent differences between the previous Bill and the Bill as it is to be amended are less than they were in the Habitual Drunkards Bill which has just passed through Committee, the real differences which the Government desires to bring about are very much greater than in the former case. In the case of the Habitual Drunkards Bill it was the wording rather than the substance that was altered; but it is proposed to alter this Bill in substance. The changes are very material indeed, and I do not quite understand in what position this Bill stands as compared with the Bill which has just passed through Committee. Perhaps the noble Lord who represents the Government will explain, so that I may know exactly how I stand.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  LORD BELPER: The Amendments I have to move on behalf of the Government are in line with the criticisms which I made when the Bill was read a second time, and it was subject to these Amendments that the Government accepted the Second Reading of the Bill. We do not propose to move additional clauses or deal in any other way with the Bill.
  On Question, agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1:—
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: The words "only of being interested," which I propose to substitute for "of his holding shares," correspond with the wording of Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872, and it is thought that they cover the ground better than the words as they now stand. The clause as amended will read as follows—
  "A justice shall not be disqualified to act for any purpose under the Licensing Acts by reason, only of being interested in a railway company owning or occupying licensed refreshment, rooms or hotels."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 6, to leave out 'of his holding shares,' and to insert 'only of

  417
  being interested.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester).
  LORD BELPER: The Government have no objection to this Amendment which they consider a proper one.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  LORD BELPER: I have to move the deletion of Sub-sections (1) and (2), which provide—
  "(1) That no person who would be disqualified by Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872, to act under the Licensing Acts in a district shall be appointed a member of watch committee, or a clerk of the peace, petty sessions, borough justices, or watch committee in that district; (2) that no person shall be appointed to act in any such office as the aforesaid who is in partnership with any person holding a professional appointment under a brewery or distillery company or an association for the protection of the interests of persons engaged in the liquor trade."
  In the place of these sub-sections I move to insert a provision making Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872, as amended by this Act, apply to a clerk to justices in like manner as it applies to a justice. This Amendment, which the Government think is necessary, practically carries out the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, for it provides that the same disqualification shall apply to clerks to justices as applies at present to the justices themselves. The clause as it stands goes very much further. As drawn, the measure would absolutely prevent a clerk of the peace, petty sessions, borough justices, or watch committee from being appointed who was disqualified to act as a justice under the Licensing Act of 1872. As to clerks of the peace, the only occasions on which their action comes in question are when they fulfil the duties of clerks of quarter sessions, and I do not think that in any matter of licensing appeal those courts are likely to act at the instigation of the clerk. They are in a much more independent position than one or two justices acting with their awn clerk. This is a Bill to alter the qualifications of licensing authorities and the time of holding licensing sessions, and its short title is the Licensing Sessions Act.
  418
  Watch committees are in no sense licensing authorities, and the Government do not think the Bill ought to deal with them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 6, to leave out sub-clauses (1) and (2) and to insert—(1) Section 60 of the Licensing Act, 1872, which relates to disqualifications of justices shall, as amended by this Act, apply to a clerk to-justices in like manner as it applies to a justice."—(Lord Belper.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I gladly accept the alteration proposed with regard to justices' clerks. The more one looks into the subject the more complicated it seems. I think the clause as now proposed—though I have some difficulty in judging how it will operate in practice—is better than the one I inserted in the Bill. But I feel great difficulty about the watch committees. This point is one on which great emphasis was laid by the witnesses, before the Royal Commission and by both parties in the Report of the Commission itself. I believe the noble Lord, with his knowledge of the affairs of the Home Office, will bear me out in saying, that recent months have not shown the alleged evil to be a fanciful one. It would in these circumstances be a very great loss to decline to deal with the matter. There has been abundant evidence of the grossness of the abuse in some places where the men who are disqualified from sitting as licensing justices are called upon to deal with the very same problem as members of the watch committee. Nothing would be more disappointing to us than the necessity, if it be a necessity, of striking; out the provision which deals with the watch committees. I admit that watch committees would not naturally fall within the title of the Bill, but I understand that when we postpone the title on going into Committee, we do so in order that, if any provision is carried which is contrary to the title as originally drafted, it may be altered. I should be very sorry if on so technical a point a great reform is to be postponed.
  EARL SPENCER: I hope the Government will carefully consider what has, been said by the right rev. Prelate, because there is no more important

  419
  part of the Report of the Royal Commission than that which deals with this subject Anybody who reads the Report of the Royal Commission will see that there are very grave cases indeed in which the watch committees have prevented the police from acting vigorously and properly. As to the clerks of the peace, it is suggested that they seldom, when licensing appeals are heard, advise the court. I cannot speak from actual experience, but what I have heard tends to show that in other cases which come before the courts the clerk of the peace is almost always consulted and gives advice. I trust the provision relating to clerks of the peace will be retained.
  LORD BELPER: I am assured that watch committees would be entirely outside the scope of the Bill, but after what has been said I will take care to again consult the Home Secretary. I can, however, give no pledge on the matter.
  EARL SPENCER: If the watch committee is included, the County Standing Joint Committee ought to be included, for it stands in the same position in the county as the watch committee does in the borough.
  LORD BELPER: I have never heard the same objections raised to the Standing Joint Committee of the county as are raised in the case of the watch committee, but undoubtedly they stand on the same footing. They are both purely police committees, and do not deal with licensing questions. I think that what the noble Earl has said shows how difficult it would be to deal with watch committees in this Bill.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: Do I understand that the question of the watch committee will be reconsidered?
  LORD BELPER: I cannot in the least say that it will be reconsidered, but I have promised to bring what has been said before the Home Secretary.
  LORD HENEAGE: This question of the watch committee is a very difficult one. I support the Government Amendment, because, if disqualification is to be
  420
  extended to the watch committee, it must be extended not only to the Joint Committee of the county, but to the chief constable of the county also. It seems rather a strong thing that a man who has been elected by the ratepayers as a fit and proper person to be returned to the town council should be debarred from doing his duty simply on account of his trade. I am myself connected with a borough in which the watch committee are entirely under the thumb of the extremest section of the temperance party, and the police complain quite as much of interference with their duty from those members as they do in other boroughs of interference from those connected with the trade. I cannot see why a man should be excluded from serving on the watch committee because he is interested in the sale of beer and spirits, any more than a man interested in the sale of soda-water and ginger-beer.
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BELPER: Sub-section 3 of Clause 2 provides that no solicitor, being a clerk of licensing justices, or being in partnership with such clerk, shall, as solicitor for any person, conduct or act in any application for or in respect of a licence or any other proceedings whatsoever under the Licensing Acts, except so far as relates to the preparation of notices or forms. The Amendment standing in my name will render solicitors contravening this sub-section liable on summary conviction to a fine of £100.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 1, line 27, after 'forms' to insert 'and if any solicitor contravenes this provision, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.'"—(Lord Belper
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 2, page 2, line 1, to leave out Sub-clause 4."—(Lord Belper.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, altering the title of the Bill to "The Licensing Bill."
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 6, page 2, line 33, to leave out 'Sessions.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be reprinted as amended. [No. 80.]

  LICENSING SESSIONS BILL [H.L.]
    PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
    Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
    MARRIAGES LEGALISATION BILL [H.L.]
    Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
    ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  VOLUNTEER RANGES.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state how much of the grant of £100,000 taken for Volunteer ranges last year has been expended, and how it has been applied; and whether the unexpended balance of £4,778 of the original grant of £40,000 taken for this purpose in the Military Works Loan Act, 1889 (Head 3, Sub-head 2) has yet been allocated, and in what manner. I do not propose to-day to do more than ask the question, but I hope to have an opportunity after the Whitsun recess of dealing more fully with this very important matter.
  LORD HARRIS: Before the noble Lord the Under Secretary replies I should like to call attention to the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside, in which they suggested that
  422
  ranges which had been provided out of Government funds should be at the disposal of the Yeomanry equally with any other branch of His Majesty's forces. I have not observed that any reply has been made by the Secretary of State to that suggestion, either in his speeches or in any communication to officers commanding yeomanry regiments. This is a matter of vital importance to yeomanry regiments, because the contingent grant depends upon whether a yeoman has made himself efficient in musketry, as well as in other ways. The Yeomanry feel under the deepest obligation—I do certainly—to Volunteer corps who have put themselves to considerable inconvenience in order to assist neighbouring yeomanry regiments to obtain grants, as they have not the funds to obtain ranges for themselves. The large increase which is proposed in the Yeomanry will, of course, increase the difficulty, and I trust that the War Office will consider the matter.
  THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURYcalled attention to the great inconvenience caused by the closing of ranges at Swindon.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): I do not know that it is possible to ear-mark what actual portions of these separate sums have been expended, because they were lumped togother. But, as far as the expenditure has been made up to date, about £77,000 has been allotted out of £170,000, leaving a balance of £93,000, which we have still to deal with. I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that it would be impossible, in the limits of an answer, to give details of the amounts that have been expended on the different ranges, but there will be no objection to a Paper being laid on the Table, similar to last year, giving the details. As to the use of the ranges by the Yeomanry, if the noble Lord will give notice of the question, I shall be glad to give him a reply on a future occasion. I was not aware that the ranges at Swindon had been closed. I fear, however, that this is not the only place where ranges have been closed in consequence of the improvement of the rifle. We have in

  423
  hand the sum of money I have mentioned, out of which we are prepared to assist any well-devised scheme brought forward.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I should like to ask whether any conditions will be attached to the allocation of the money,
  LORD RAGLAN: I am afraid I am mot in a position to answer that question.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six of the clock to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.