HL Deb 21 July 1902 vol 111 cc727-59

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said it was most necessary that there should be power to apprehend a person found drunk in a place of public entertainment, and in such a place of public resort as a railway station; but he understood the Clause, as at present drafted, did not cover such cases. The Clause as he proposed to amend it would provide that if a person was found drunk in any highway or other place, or place of public entertainment, or resort, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, and appeared to be incapable of taking care of himself, he might be apprehended and dealt with according to law.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 8, after 'place,' to insert 'or a place of public entertainment or resort.'" — (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said the objection to inserting these words lay in the fact that at present it was not an offence to be drunk in a place of public entertainment or resort, and that the Clause merely dealt with existing offences. He hoped the right rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

withdrew his Amendment at this stage, but intimated his intention of moving it on Clause 2.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved to insert the words "or is a nuisance to the public." This was his own Amendment, although he had others on the Paper which he had undertaken to move on the part of the trade. When he came to move these Amendments he should have an explanation on the part of the trade to make, and he proposed to read the reasons why each particular Amendment should be agreed to. As to this particular Amendment, he thought that when a man was found staggering about the street, and in his drunken condition knocking up against people, the police should have power to arrest him. Drunkenness could best be suppressed by the police by an Amendment of this. kind.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 9, after 'himself,' to insert 'or is a nuisance to the public.'."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

thought that the-words of the noble Earl were of a vague character and might be liable to misconstruction. The case of a man staggering through the streets would be covered by the present law, which enabled the police to apprehend a man who was drunk and disorderly and who was making himself a nuisance.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said he would not press his Amendment, but he hoped that what the noble Lord had said would be fully reported, and that the police would act upon it.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved an Amendment which provided that if any person is found drunk in any highway or other public place, "or place of public entertainment or resort," while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years, he may be apprehended and made liable to fine or imprisonment. The right rev. Prelate considered that, as the Clause most rightly made it an offence for a person to be drunk in certain places while in charge of a child under seven years of age, it was highly desirable that it should be extended in the direction of his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In Clause 2, line 12, after 'place' to insert 'or place of public entertainment or resort'"—(The Lord of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said his objection to the Amendment was this—that all other offences under this Bill in reference to persons arrested for drunkenness were confined to offences Committed on the highway or other public place, or on licensed premises. The- Home Office considered it very undesirable to extend the definition of this Clause, and so extend the provisions of the Bill in one isolated case.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

hoped the Amendment would not be disposed of without further consideration or discussion. A new offence was created by the Clause, and the offence created ought to be extended to o her places than those mentioned in the Clause. It was unreasonable to say that because no such power had been given it should not be given.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

thought the argument of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would prevent any change in the law. He was of opinion that a great deal could be said in favour of including the offence mentioned by the Amendment within the scope of the Clause, He thought that the words "or resort" might be very well omitted by the right rev. Prelate.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

mentioned that, according to decisions in the Law Courts, railway stations, theatres, concert halls, athletic grounds, and auction rooms had been held to be places of public resort. These ought to be included under the new provision, and he hoped the noble Lord would reconsider whether he could not accept the Amendment.

LORD BELPER

said that if the right rev. Prelate would withdraw the Amendment he would undertake to meet him, to some extent, by putting in words in the definition Clause to meet the special point he had raised.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

agreed to accept this undertaking.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

suggested that after the words "found drunk while having the charge of a child apparently under the age of seven years," the words "or of any horsed vehicle or motor car" should be inserted.

LORD BELPER

pointed out that the Amendment was unnecessary, as a drunken man in charge of a horsed vehicle or motor car could be arrested under the present law.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:—

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved an Amendment to provide that the licensee should be required to prove that "he did not knowingly suffer drunkenness to take place on his premises," instead of being required to prove, as the Clause proposed, that he took "all reasonable steps for preventing drunkenness on his premises."

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 8, to leave out from 'him' to the end of the Clause and to insert did not, knowingly suffer the said drunkenness to take, place on his premises.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss".)

LORD BELPER

said he was rather surprised that such an important Amendment should be moved without any explanation being given of the reason why it was introduced. The Clause dealt with a very important subject, and with a case where the law had been proved to be very unsatisfactory. There were an enormous number of convictions for drunkenness, especially arising out of drunkenness in public-houses, whilst the number of convictions for permitting drunkenness was infinitesimal. The words in the Clause had been carefully thought out, and they seemed to get over the difficulty. As a matter of fact, the Clause recognised that a great privilege was given to the licence-holder, and that within the terms of that privilege it was his duty to exercise his trust with due care, and to do everything he could to prevent drunkenness on his premises. The Clause looked to the licensed person to prove that he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent drunkenness. He thought the words of the Bill would be much more effective than those of the Amendment. It was the duty of the person in charge to take steps to find out whether a man was drunk before serving him, otherwise it would be easy for any publican to shut his eyes to the fact. The words of the Clause were not unreasonable, and it would be for the magistrates to decide whether the publican did take reasonable steps. He was aware that the words in the Clause were not the same as were suggested by the majority and minority Reports of the Royal Commission, but the object in view was the same. He could not accept the Amendment, believing this Clause to be the most useful in the Bill for putting down drunkenness.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said the trade were of opinion that the words in the Bill, "reasonable steps" were vague, and might be very differently construed, and that the licensed victualler should not be subjected to undefined obligations. As the noble Lord had admitted, the words in the Bill did not meet even the recommendations of either the minority or majority Reports of the Royal Commission. The majority Report (page 21) said— Where a person is found drunk on the licensed premises, or observed quitting them in that condition, the licence-holder should be required to prove that he and his servants were ignorant of the drunkenness, or that if they knew it they did not permit the offender to remain. The minority Report was even clearer and on page 168 said— Whether a person were found drunk on the premises or were seen leaving the premises in a drunken condition, it should be incumbent on the publican to show that neither he nor his servants knew of the drunkenness, and that he did not with such knowledge permit him to remain on his premises. The words of his Amendment were practically those of the minority Report.

VISCOUNT CROSS

hoped the Government would stand by the words in the Bill. The effect of those words was to throw the onus of proof upon the publican, which was preferable to throwing it upon the prosecution.

Amendment, by leave of the House, Withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

*LORD WINDSOR

said the now Clause standing in his name had for its object more the prevention of crime than the punishment of crime after it had been Committed. It was moved in the other House on the Report stage, and was opposed by the Home Secretary for the one reason that it would diminish the responsibility of the publican. The object of the Clause was to provide that instructions should be given to the police generally—where they were present and were able to do so—to assist the publican to prevent crime. But absence of warning could in no case be pleaded as a defence. Under the Bill as it stood, a publican might unknowingly commit an offence and be convicted. The Amendment which had just been withdrawn would have prevented that state of things, because the noble Lord suggested the insertion of the word "knowingly." As the Bill now stood they were putting a man into a position in which he could commit an offence against the law and be convicted of that offence although he committed it without knowing he was doing so. It surely was not unreasonable, if they put a man into that position, to give general instructions to the police that when they saw a man who was obviously drunk going into a public-house they should warn the publican at once, so that the man should not be served. That seemed to be the only reasonable view, and was supported by the evidence given by Sir Albert de Rutzen before the Royal Commission, and quoted by him (Lord Windsor) on the Second Reading debate. Sir John Bridge, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission, said his opinion was that if a constable saw a drunken man go into a public-house it was quite right for him to enter and acquaint the land-lord of the fact. Then, only last month, another magistrate, sitting at the Greenwich Police Court, dismissed a summons against a publican for permitting drunken persons to be on the premises, on the ground that the police constable might have stopped the man before he went into the house, but did not do so. He quoted those instances to show that it was not at all an uncommon practice for a police constable to take this very natural course, and surely it was reasonable to put in the Bill, that regulations should be made by the various police authorities showing that it was the intention that constables should not only be set to watch the public-houses in order to obtain as many convictions against the publicans as they possibly could, but that they should also do their best to prevent crime. He hoped the Government would think it a reasonable Clause to insert in the Bill.

Amendment moved, to insert as a new Clause— Regulations shall be made by the police authority for the purpose of securing that, where possible, a constable who sees a drunken person (or anyone who is a convicted person within the meaning of this Act) entering, or about to enter, licensed premises (or a club registered under Part III. of this Act), shall at once warn the person in charge of the premises against serving such person.''—(Lord Windsor.)

LORD HENEAGE

thought it was only fair, if the Government allowed certain wretched and miserable public houses to exist in the country districts, they should give the people who served in them warning wherever possible. In rural districts the landlord of small houses, which in many cases did not afford a living to the tenant, was generally absent all day long, and the bar was left to his wife or servant, who also had the household duties to attend to. In such cases it was desirable that the police should give warning wherever it was possible to do so. The publican had a right to have, as far as possible, the protection and guidance of the law. He saw one danger, however, in the new Clause. A publican might plead that the police had not given warning. He did not know how that would stand, but words ought to be inserted to make it clear that a publican, when charged with permitting drunkenness, could not plead in defence that the police had not given him notice. That was a matter that could be looked into by the Standing Committee.

LORD BELPER

said it was the duty of a policeman to do everything he could to prevent a contravention of the law, but it was unusual and undesirable to define the duties of the police in an Act of Parliament. There was also the danger, if the Clause were accepted, that a licence-holder charged with permitting drunkenness might escape on the plea that he was not warned by the police. He could assure the House and the noble Lord that they quite recognised that it was the duty of a policeman to do what was pointed out in the proposed new Clause. If the Amendment were withdrawn, he could undertake that the Home Secretary would issue a circular pointing out to the police that it was their duty to assist publicans in keeping the law, and not to lay traps for them.

*LORD WINDSOR

said it was not his intention, in moving the Amendment, to allow the plea of not having been warned to be set up by the publican as a defence. As it was thought inadvisable to insert a provision of this sort in a Bill, he thought he ought to accept the undertaking of his noble friend, and in those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said this Amendment had the strong support of the trade.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 5:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved an Amendment providing that, instead of making a separation order, the Court might, with the consent of the wife, order her to be detained in an inebriates' retreat. He said this subsection dealt with one of the most difficult subjects in the Bill. The first part of the Clause, which protected a wife against a drunken husband in a case of extreme necessity, did not meet with any opposition, but in the second part they had to face the problem of a woman being turned absolutely adrift by her husband without any chance of obtaining regularly the money for maintenance to which she was by law entitled. She might have small chance of getting the money under the law, and there was a danger of her place being taken by someone who would occupy her position as wife with out marriage. By the Amendment he hoped this difficulty could be met, and the woman would have the option of going into a reformatory and beginning a new life. Thus there would be a chance of restoring peace into the household. Objection was made to his Clause on the ground that no drunken woman would give her consent to such detention. This, he thought, was not the case. The experience of those valuable public servants, the police-court mission aries, was strongly in favour of the provision he advocated.

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 40, after 'wife,' to insert 'Provided that, instead of making an order in pursuance of paragraph (a.) of this sub-section, the Court may, with the consent of the wife, order her to be committed to, and detained in, any retreat licensed under the Inebriates' Acts, 1879 to 1900, the licensee of which is willing to receive her; and such order shall have effect as if she had been admitted to the retreat under Section 10 of the Habitual Dunkards Act, 1879, as amended by any subsequent enactments.' "— (The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPEE

thought the Amendment would be an improvement to the Clause, which was entirely in conformity with the provisions of the former Act. It would obviously be an advantage that a woman in this position should be given an opportunity of deciding whether she would not go into a reformatory and begin a new life, with the possibility of being reunited with her husband.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Would the husband have any option under this clause?

LORD BELPER

No, I think not.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:—

LORD BELPER

proposed a drafting Amendment to this Clause, dealing with the prohibition of sale of liquor to persons declared to be habitual drunkards. The Amendment provided that'' for any subsequent offence "a fine" not exceeding twenty pounds" shall be inflicted, instead of "twenty Bounds"

Amendment moved— In page 3, line 31, after 'person' to insert 'to a fine not exceeding.'"—(Lord Belper.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:—

LORD BELPER

proposed, in the following sub-section, "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," to substitute for the word "convictions" the word "licences."

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 15, to leave out 'convictions' and to insert 'licences.' "—(Lord Helper.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

proposed to add to the end of the sub-section the following:— "Except where the convictions are for offences of a technical or trivial nature, or where the last recorded conviction is more than three years old." He contended that where the licence had been renewed for three years and no later offence had been committed, no power should be given to the magistrate to interfere.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 16, after 'held,' to insert 'except where the convictions are for offences of a technical or trivial nature, or where the last recorded conviction is more than three years old.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER,

in opposing the Amendment, said endorsement was done away with altogether, and in its place it was provided that a register of every conviction should be kept. The magistrates should have absolute discretion as to how far they should give regard to previous convictions. If the words of the noble Earl were accepted, the magistrates would not be able to exercise that discretion. The Government preferred the Clause as it stood. The magistrates were not obliged to take a particular course of action in consequence of the convictions recorded in the register.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

said the object of the new sub-section standing in his name was to make it perfectly clear that the system of endorsing licences had been abolished.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 20, to add as a new sub-section: After the commencement of this Act no conviction shall be recorded on a licence."— (Lord Helper.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:—

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said that persons now trading as wine and spirit; dealers, and who sold cigars, would, under this Clause, have to obtain a justices' licence under which to conduct their business simply because they did sell cigars. The effect of his Amendment would be to provide that the sub section should not apply to any excise licence taken out by a spirit dealer or wine dealer for premises which were exclusively used for the sale of intoxicating liquors or of intoxicating liquors, mineral waters, "and cigars."

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 29, after 'waters' to insert 'and cigars.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

said that if they accepted the Amendment they could not stop at cigars, but would have to include cigarettes, biscuits, etc. He did not see any reason why cigars should be specially included.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to leave out the words "except as hereinafter provided," his object being, if their Lordships accepted this Amendment, to subsequently move the omission of subsection 4, which ran as follows:— Provided that where a licence for the sale of wine, spirits, liqueurs, sweets, or cider, not to be consumed on the premises, was in force on the 25th day of June, 1902, an application for the renewal of such licence, or of any licence granted by way of renewal thereof from time to time, shall not be refused to the person who held such licence on the 25th day of June. 1902, except on one or more of the grounds on which it might have been refused if this Act had not passed, or on the ground that the licensee has sold surreptitiously under such licence, or has assisted in concealing or misrepresenting the nature of goods sold under such licence, or has in any other way, in the opinion of the justices, been guilty of misconduct in the management of his business under such licence. The effect of this sub-section was to give persons holding grocers' licences on June 25th last an absolute right to claim such licences during the remainder of their lifetime. That was a principle that ought not to he adopted in dealing with licences. Justices would therefore be prevented from exercising any control over such licences for the next twenty years as least, and the serious character of such an exemption would be seen when he mentioned that at present there were some 10,000 or 11,000 grocers' licences in existence. The powers of the justices would, in fact, be limited entirely to the now licences. He maintained that if it was right for justices to exercise any discretion at all, it was right for them to exercise it as to all these licences. It had been said that if the Clause had been passed as it was introduced it would have had the effect of abolishing grocers' licences altogether, but people who thus argued could know very little about the matter. It was very undesirable to introduce still further the exemptions in the Licensing Act. The danger of postponing legislation of this kind for a long period was seen in the case of the anti-1869 beer-houses, of which there were 35,000 in existence, and which at present were only under partial control of the justices, who could not deal with any of these licences except in reference to the character of the individual licence-holder or the manner in which the house was conducted. This was one of the disastrous effects of postponed legislation, and they had seen that many of the worst houses in the trade were to be found among those privileged houses, some of which sold very little beer, and only lived a precarious existence in the hope that compensation would be given for their abolition. They wanted no vested interests created in these grocers' licences. The course adopted by the Government in this matter was at variance with both the majority and the minority Reports of the Royal Commission, as both these Reports recommended that such licences should be brought under the control of the justices. Besides, some years ago, Mr. Ritchie, when a private Member of the other House, successfully passed through Parliament a Bill bringing off-licences under the control of the justices without any kind of exemption. He had failed to understand the reasons which induced the Home Secretary to accept this provision at the last moment. If the justices were to be trusted at all, they should be trusted completely, and should be free to use their power free and unfettered. By carrying his Amendment, the Clause would be restored to the form in which it was when the Bill was originally introduced into the House of Commons.

Amendment moved— In Clause 9, page 4, lines 35 and 36, to leave out 'except as hereinafter provided.'"—(The, Earl of Camperdown.)

LORD BELPER

said that the Amendment which had been moved was undoubtedly one of importance. The Clause for the first time gave the licensing justices power to deal with grocers licences according to their discretion. It was not correct to say that this particular sub-section would give the present holders the right to have the licence as long as they lived. All that it said was that they should have the licences upon the old terms so long as they should require them. This was not necessarily as long as they lived. The case of grocers' licences was entirely different from that of beer-house licences. The proposal was not brought forward because there was any serious complaint with regard to the way in which grocers' licences were managed, nor because of their inordinate number, but from the fact that they were very much increasing, and that it seemed to the Home Secretary desirable that power should be given to the justices to prevent that increase, and put a limit upon their number. The Clause was not framed on the assumption that grocers' licences were an evil, and ought to be abolished. The exemption of the existing licences was accepted by the Government as a compromise.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said he had carefully read the proceedings in the other House, but failed to find anything in support of the view that the exemption was accepted as a compromise.

LORD BELPER

said that was the case, for on a division the temperance party did not challenge a division. Looking to the fact that they were not creating a vested interest, and that there was no strong desire to reduce the licences which existed, he hoped the House would not accept the Amendment.

LORD HENEAGE

contended that the effect of the proviso was to give a vested interest in a licence in many cases to young men who had just succeeded to a business. Those persons had never had a vested interest before. Why should they have it now?

LORD BELPER

denied that they gave, a vested interest. They only enabled the existing holders of licences to obtain a renewal on the same conditions as before.

LORD HENEAGE

Exactly. In future these licences must be renewed, no matter what was the age of the licensees nor for how long a period, they might be capable of holding them. By that very proviso they created a vested interest in the licences which already existed. With regard to the-alleged compromise, their Lordships had not been informed that a circular was sent out from very influential persons holding a large number of licensed grocers' shops, with a few to putting pressure upon Members of the other House to get this proviso put in. The compromise did not take place in the House of Commons, and he hoped their Lordships would not think much of it, but deal with the question entirely on its merits.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

was ready to support the Government to the best of his power in their endeavours, realising as he did the extreme difficulty they had to contend with, but he could not follow them in this case. The noble Earl had made out an unanswerable case. There was nothing about a compromise in the debates in Hansard.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

assured the Committee that there was no new vested interest created by this proviso. An existing grocer's licence might still be refused on the grounds on which it might be refused if this Act had not passed. The power of the justices was exceedingly wide with respect to the renewal of licences, and if this reservation was not made, justices might say they objected to all grocers' licences, and might proceed accordingly to abolish all such licences. The proviso prevented such a sweeping away of all grocers' interest.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

asked why the Government expressed such profound distrust of the justices to whom they were giving these additional powers. And why did they introduce the Bill without this exemption?

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

did not think the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy touched the point, for the reasons that if the justices adopted the extraordinary course suggested, the persons holding the licences could appeal against their decision.

*LORD WINDSOR

pointed out that the recommendation of the Royal Commission that grocers' licences should be put under the licensing authority was part of a large scheme dealing with all licences. The Bill already gave two new grounds on which the magistrates could refuse to renew a licence; and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would not be agreed to.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said that no distrust of the licensing authority was implied in the Clause. As to the change which had been made in another place, no doubt the Bill as originally introduced was an excellent one, but that was not to say that all proposals for its improvement must necessarily be shut out.

EARL SPENCER

said he preferred the Bill in its original form. The Clause as it stood would strengthen the position of the grocers who held licences. He was opposed to doing away altogether with grocers' licences; but, considering the evidence before the Royal Commission, it was evidently high time that these licences should be brought under the same control as other licences. There was nothing to show that the magistrates would be more disposed to sweep away grocers' licences than any other form of licence: and their authority ought not to be hampered.

On Question whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause, the House divided:— Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Dudley, E. Churchill, L. [Teller.]
Haddington, E. Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)
Hardwicke, K. Colchester, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Mayo, E. Colville of Culross, L.
Onslow, E. Congleton, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Powis, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Grafton, D. Romney, E. James, L.
Portland, D. Saint Germans, E. Killanin, L.
Wellington, D. Stradbroke, E. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.,)
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Lawrence, L.
Camden, M. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Lindley, L.
Lansdowne, M. Yarborough, E. Mostyn, L.
Robertson. L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Cross, V. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Gosehen, V. Tredegar, L.
Bathurst, E. Allerton, L. Ventry, L.
Carrington, E. Ashbourne, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Cawdor E Belhaven and Stenton, L. Windsor, L.
Dartmouth, E. Belper, L. Wrottesley, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery. Zouche of Haryngworth, L,.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Chiehester, L. Bp. Foley, L.
Gloucester, L. Bp. Hatherton, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Rochester, L. Bp. Heneage, L. [Teller.]
Carlisle, E. St. Albans, L. Bp. Lamington, L.
Durham, E. Winchester, L. Bp. Leigh, L.
Morley, E. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Northbrook, E. Brampton, L. Reay, L.
Spencer, E. Burghclere, L. Ribblesdale, L.
Stamford, E. Calthorpe, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery)
Clonbrock, L. St. Levan, L.
Falkland, V. Coleridge, L. Sandhurst, L.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Davey, L. Sinclair, L.
Hampden, V. Denman, L. Wandsworth, L.
Knutsford, V. Farrer, L

Amendment negatived.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

proposed a drafting Amendment to sub-Section 4 which would make the last words read "guilty of misconduct in the licensing management of his business under such licence."

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 19, after the second 'the,' to insert licensing.'"—(The Lord Bishop of 'Winchester.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:—

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said the argument in Grand Committee was directed against the use of "screens." The words of the Clause were indefinite and vague, and did not state from whose observation. The words he proposed in his Amendment ensured the person selling having full opportunity of observing or identifying anyone who was either intoxicated, a "convicted" person under the meaning of Clause 6, or a child messenger under age.

Amendment moved— In page 5, line 29, to leave out from 'conceals' to 'for' in line 30, and to insert 'the person obtaining intoxicating liquor from the observation of the person supplying the same.'" —(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

said the concealment of the person obtaining intoxicating liquor from the observation of the person supplying it was only one of the objects which the Clause was intended to meet. If the Amendment of the noble Earl were accepted it would deprive the justices of the power of supervising the structural alterations.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

questioned whether the words in the Clause would be construed to cover the case referred to by the noble Earl, and suggested the combination with them of the noble Earl's words.

LORD BELPER

said it seemed to him that the words covered the case completely.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved to amend sub-Section 4, which provided that— On any application for the renewal of a licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises, the licensing justices may require a plan of the premises to be produced before them… and on renewing any such licence they may, by order, direct that, within a time fixed by the order, such alterations as they think reasonably necessary to secure the proper control of the business, etc. He moved to omit the words "they think reasonably necessary to secure the proper control of the business," and to insert "may be necessary for the due observance of the law." He did not think it was legitimate for magistrates to interfere with the conduct of the licence holder's business except where the law was violated.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 12, to leave out from 'as'' to 'shall' in line 14, and to insert 'may be necessary for the due observance of the law.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

said this Amendment was moved and objected to in the House of Commons, and the words in the Clause were accepted as a reasonable compromise. The words proposed by the Amendment were very vague. It was impossible to know exactly what kind of alterations would be covered by the words in the Amendment and, in the circumstances, he hoped the House would adhere to the Clause as it stood.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

proposed an Amendment empowering the justices to direct that such alterations should be made in that part of the premises where intoxicating liquor was sold or consumed, "or which is used as a means of communication between such part and any street or other public way." He should have thought that in the second part of the Clause it was as necessary to have some proper description of the public-house as it was in the first part.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 15, after 'consumed' to insert, ' or which is used as a means of communication between such part and any street or other public way.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said that if the words in the Amendment were introduced they might give rise to a number of difficult questions. The object of the Clause was to give the justices control over the structure of those parts of the premises where intoxicating liquors were sold and consumed. In many cases it might happen that the communication to the street was not under the control of the licence-holder at all.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

moved an Amendment which would make the order of the justices subject to an appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions as provided by the Alehouse Act, 1828.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 16, after 'sessions' to insert 'as provided by the Alehouse Act, 1828'"—(Lord Helper.)

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

proposed an Amendment to the effect that if any such order for structural alterations was made and complied with "or reversed on appeal" no further requisition for the alteration should be made within the next five years. He said it was obviously unfair that if the justices had made an order which had been successfully appealed against, they should be able annually to put the licence holder to trouble and expense on a matter already adjudicated upon.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 17, after 'with' to insert 'or reversed on appeal."'— The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

did not think the point raised was one likely to happen. He was unable to accept the Amendment, for if one particular order had been reversed the words of the noble earl would prevent any other order of a smaller character being made in respect of structural alterations.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

was strongly in favour of the words, but in face of the opposition to them he withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

proposed two drafting Amendments to the end of the sub-section, which read as follows— If any such order is not complied with the licensed person shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding 20s. for every day during which the default continues. The first Amendment was— To omit the words 'any such order is not complied with.' The second was— To insert after 'person,' the words 'makes default in complying with any such order.'

Amendments agreed to.

LORD BELPER

said the sub-section standing in his name had been asked for by the liquor trade, and was a reasonable provision.

Amendment moved— After line 22, to insert as anew sub-section: '(5) Notice of any order under this section shall be forthwith given by the clerk to the owner of the premises in respect of which the order is made.'"—(Lord Belper.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12:—

* THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said this Clause provided that no clerk of licensing justices— Shall, as solicitor or agent 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, at any licensing or petty sessions held for the district for which he is the clerk, except so far as relates to the preparation of notices or forms, etc. He moved as an Amendment— The insertion of the words 'or any adjoining district' between 'clerk' and 'except.' He said the matter had been before the House on former occasions, and was the subject of discussion last year. It came out in evidence before the Royal Commission that in the case of two adjoining divisions served by the same Brewery Company, the magistrates' clerk in division A, acted in all the company's cases in division B, and the magistrates' clerk in division B, acted in division A. This enabled the Brewery Company to secure by what could hardly be called legitimate means, the interest of the magistrates' clerk in all their cases.

Amendment moved— In page, line 32. after 'clerk,' to insert 'or any adjoining district.'"—(The, Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

EARL BATHURST

said this Clause had had a very chequered career in another place, and he thought that the Amendment was unnecessary because it would do no good for the cause of temperance for which the Bill was introduced. So far as the magistrates' clerks were concerned, it would place them in a very awkward position, and they would have either to sacrifice their position or give up the greater part of their private practice as solicitors. In the Cirencester Division, in which he acted as a magistrate, the magistrates' clerk would, if the Amendment was accepted, either have to resign or give up his private work in nine towns. He did not think that any influence which the licensing clerk could bring to bear on the licensing magistrates would result in extra licences being given.

VISCOUNT CROSS

also expressed the opinion that the Amendment would, inflict hardship on justices' clerks. It was not, he reminded their Lordships, a very easy task to obtain such clerks as were required, and this Amendment would considerably increase that difficulty by still further limiting the choice. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.

LORD HENEAGE

supported the Amendment, which he thought a very reasonable one. If justices could not be trusted to shield themselves from the influence of their own clerks, they ought not to be subjected to the influence of the same clerks in other divisions of their district. The same justices sat on different Benches very frequently, and magistrates' clerks were very much connected one with another.

LORD BELPER

thought it was going far to disqualify a man from acting in any district besides the one for which he was clerk. It could hardly be assumed that the clerk would corruptly influence the Bench by acting outside the area in which he was magistrate's clerk. Such an argument was extremely far-fetched. Besides, to pass such an Amendment would be to seriously restrict the incomes of the clerks. In the case of the Bench upon which he sat, such an Amendment would have the effect of preventing the magistrate's clerk acting as a solicitor in three counties. As the noble Viscount had pointed out, it was very important that magistrates should be able to command the services of the best men they could get as clerks, but this Amendment would most seriously restrict their choice.

EARL SPENCER

supported the Amendment. In dealing with licensing matters, everyone should be above suspicion, or the least chance of suspicion, and this could not be the case if magistrates' clerks were allowed to practise in districts where the magistrates under whom they acted went. No doubt the petty sessional clerk did not rule the magistrates, but he was a person of great importance in the public eye, and of great importance to the magistrates, and it was of the high- est value that he should not be supposed to be interested in any case that was brought before the magistrates. He agreed that it was desirable to get the best men for these posts, but he would not despair of succeeding, though he admitted that it might be necessary to raise salaries for that purpose. He

Amendment negatived.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved an Amendment to provide that magistrates' clerks should be required to secure the consent of the licensing justices to their preparing notices or forms. A solicitor to a great brewing company had stated not long ago that he never prepared any notices or forms himself, but always gave this work to the justices' clerks in the various districts, in order, of course, to secure their weight upon his side. That being so, it should, at the very least, be obligatory on the clerk to let those who had the decision in the matter know that he had been employed to draw up the notices.

would prefer having to deal with that question than to leave the Clause as it stood in the Bill without the Amendment.

On Question, that the proposed words stand part of the Clause, the House divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Farrer, L.
Hatherton, L.
Camperdown, E. Chichester, L. Bp. Heneage, L.
Carlisle, E. Gloucester, L. Bp. Leigh, L.
Carrington, E. [Teller.] St,. Albans. L. Bp. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Northbrook, E. Winchester, L. Bp. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]
Spencer, E. Burghclere, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Stamford, E. Donman, L. Wandsworth, L.
NON-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Powis, E. Culville of Culross, L.
Saint Germans, E. Congleton, L.
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Stradbroke, E. Davey, L.
Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.) Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Dawnay, L. (v. Downe.)
Grafton, D. Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Foley, L.
Portland, D. Yarborough, E. James, L.
Wellington, D. Killanin, L.
Cross, V. Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Camden, M. Falkland, V. Lamington, L.
Goschen, V. Lawrence, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.(L. Steward.) Knutsford, V. Lindley, L.
Mostyn, L.
Bathurst, E. Allerton, L. Newton, L.
Cawdor, E. Ashbourne, L. Robertson, L.
Dartmouth, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. St. Levan, L.
Doneaster, E (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Belper, L. Sinclair, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Tredegar, L.
Dudley, E. Ventry, L.
Feversham, E. Calthorpe, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Haddington, E. Churchill, L. [Teller.] Windsor, L.
Hardwicke, E. Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) Wrottesley, L.
Mayo, E. Clonbrock, L. Zouche of Haryngvvorth, L.
Morley, E. Colchester, L.
Onslow, E Coleridge, L.

Amendment moved— In line 33, after 'preparation,' to insert 'with the consent of the licensing justices.'" —(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said the Amendment was not a very important one. The Government thought that, for the convenience of everybody, the clerks should be allowed to prepare the notices and forms without any application to the magistrates.

* THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said he did not propose to press the Amendment to a division, but he was not convinced by the noble Lord's argument.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 amended and agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:—

*THE LOUD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved to insert words to deal with the question of bogus agreements, where, on a proposed transfer, one agreement was produced to the magistrates, while the agreement which in fact governed the conditions under which the House was held was kept in the background. His object was to compel the production of documents which were now often withheld and to put an end to bogus agreements.

Amendment moved— In page 8. line '26, to leave out from the second 'the' to 'and' in line 27, and to insert ' tenancy, agreement, or other assurance under which the licensed premises are to be vested in the applicant.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

thought the clause as it stood secured the object, the justices having statutory powers of calling for any agreement.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LORD DAYEY

pointed out that the document under which the licence was transferred was frequently not an agreement but the lease itself, which was not, strictly speaking, an agreement.

Amendment moved— In line 26, after the word 'agreement,' to insert 'or other assurance.' "—(Lord Davey.)

Amendment agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved the insertion of a proviso. Ho understood that, in the view of the Government, the words were unnecessary, but he proposed them in order to make impossible the existence of these secret agreements which were the governing thing between the owner of the house and the tenant.

Amendment moved— In line 33, after 'both,' to insert 'the tenancy, agreement, or other assurance to be produced under this sub-section shall be deemed to contain the terms of the proposed transferee's interest in the licensed premises, and any additional, subsequent, or collateral agreement or defeasance shall be void and of no effect.'" —(The, Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD COLERIDGE

hoped the right rev. prelate would insist on his Amendment, the insertion of which would enable the real relationship between the parties to be known, and would make clear to the justices the grounds on which they were granting a licence.

LORD BELPER

said he could not accept the Amendment, which was in the nature of a restriction between landlord and tenant.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said that the desire was to make it clear that the magistrates had the whole agreement before them, and that nothing was being kept back.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

said that this was an interference with the ordinary course of business. If the applicant, for example, did not, produce a mortgage the Amendment would make that mortgage void.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to

Clause 16:—

LORD HENEAGE

moved an Amendment— Providing that, where there is no sitting of a Petty Sessional Court within 'a reasonable time previous to the day,' an occasional licence may be given by any two justices acting for the Division and sitting together. He moved that Amendment to take the place of the words of the Bill which fixed the limit at "seven clays." In some few exceptional cases the Bill would bear very hardly on the licence-holder. For instance, in the case of a cricket match, which had to be arranged hurriedly, a licence would be required in order to supply a luncheon on the field, and that could not be obtained if a Petty Sessional Court were to be held within seven days of the application. He asked for some relaxation to be given to the proviso.

Amendment moved— In lines 23 and 24, to leave out 'seven days of the tune' and to insert 'a reasonable time previous to the day.'"—(Lord Heneage.)

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said that in Scotland, in a ease such as the noble Lord had referred to, the signature of two justices was sufficient for an occasional licence.

LORD BELPER

said he was unable to accept the Amendment owing to its vagueness. But he would be willing to alter the time from seven to three days, which he thought would meet even the most extreme case.

LORD HENEAGE

accepted the suggested alteration.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In line23, to leave out 'seven' and to insert 'three.'"—(Lord Belper.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved the insertion of a new clause. He said that if a man applied at present for a new licence he was bound under the law to give such notice as would render it possible for the inhabitants of the district to take any objection they liked. But if he applied for the transfer of a licence from his old premises to new premises the application was often granted without the inhabitants in the neighbourhood of the newly-licensed house having any opportunity of objecting. It was in order to meet these cases that he moved his Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 7, to insert as a new clause: —17A. In respect of an application for the transfer or removal of a licence under Section 4 or Section 14 of the Alehouse Act, 1825, to other premises not theretofore licensed for the sale of the same kind of intoxicating liquor, the applicant shall give the like notices and deposit the like plans as are requisite in the case of an application for a new licence. Provided always that in any case where licensed premises have been by fire, tempest, or other unforeseen and unavoidable calamity rendered unfit for the reception of travelers and for the other legal purposes of an inn, the licening justices may, in their discretion, for good cause shown, dispense with the observance of these regulations in any particular case if, in their opinion, such notices have been given as are reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case."—(The Lord. Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said the right Rev. Prelate was inaccurate when he stated that there was no means of the inhabitants of a locality knowing that an application was being made for the transfer of a licence. The only difference in the amount of notice in the case of an application for a new licence and in that for a transfer was, that it was not necessary in the latter case to advertise in a newspaper. But in the case of a transfer it was equally necessary that, fourteen days before the application was made, notice should be served on the overseers of the parish, and on the superintendent of police, and also that on one Sunday prior to the date of the application, a notice should be affixed on the door of the new premises and on the door of the Parish Church. Therefore there was full and sufficient notice given to the people in the immediate neighbourhood. He hoped the right Rev. Prelate would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 18:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved an Amendment to provide that an application for the confirmation of the grant of a licence should not be heard until twenty-one days had expired. He said it had been abundantly brought out before the Royal Commission that the confirmation of a licence had taken place on the same day as the hearing of the original application. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted, as it evidently carried out the intention of the Government.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 3, to leave out from '(1) to 'confirmed,' and to insert 'an application for the confirmation of the grant of a licence shall not be heard.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

accepted the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

proposed to add a new Clause. The view taken by the trade was that if the objection was, in the opinion of the justices, frivolous or vexatious, why should they not have the power of granting costs against the objector? Under Clause 19 of this Bill any justice whose decision was appealed against was, in every case, to have his costs paid out of the county or borough funds.

Amendment moved— To insert as a new Clause: 'The licensing justices at the annual or adjourned licensing meeting may, in their discretion, grant costs against any objector to the renewal or transfer of a licence if the said justices consider the objection to be of a frivolous or vexatious character.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

opposed the Clause. He said he was informed that the real objection to giving this power was that the power to impose costs was never exercised except by a judicial court. Moreover, it was not desirable to limit freedom of discussion as to the propriety of renewing or transferring a licence, or to hinder people by such a provision from expressing their views as to the needs of the locality in the matter. It would be difficult, considering how much people's opinions varied on these matters, to say what was a frivolous objection.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said there seemed no reason why the convenience of an application for a provisional grant on the production of plans should be withheld from those applying for an off-licence. There could be no reason against such a proposal, now that all new off-licences were to be brought under the discretion of the magistrates. It therefore appeared absurd that an applicant should have first to build his premises and then apply for a licence. The inconvenience was slight when there was a limited power of refusal; with the change in the law the inconvenience would become a hardship. He hoped the noble Lord representing the Home Office would be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— To insert as a new Clause: 'The provisions of Section 22 of the Licensing Act, 1874, as to the provisional grant and confirmation of licences in respect of new premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors to be consumed on the premises, shall apply also to licences to sell intoxicating liquors for consumption off the premises.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

said that in the case of a grocer's licence there was no reason why the applicant should not wait till the premises were finished; it could make little difference in his chance of getting a licence. On the whole, the Government saw no reason for offering increased facilities with regard to these off-licences, which seemed to be the object of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19:—

LORD BELPER

moved to substitute the words "cannot be "for the words "are not" in the sentence "all cost and charges which are not recovered from any other person."

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 16, to leave out 'are not and to insert 'cannot be.'"—(Lord Belper.)

Amendment agreed to.

LORD BELPER

moved to add at the end of Clause 19 the words contained in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In line 19, after 'accounts,' to insert 'The order of the Appellate Court may be made either at the sessions when the appeal is heard, or at the next ensuing sessions, and the costs may be taxed either in or out of sessions.'"—(Lord Belper.)

Amendment agreed to—

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

said the Clause provided that no meeting of justices in petty or special sessions should be held on licensed premises after March, 1910. He moved the shortening of the date to 1907.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 21, to leave out 'ten' and to insert 'seven.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said the Government had no objection to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,

referring to the provision that no inquest should be held on licensed premises when other suitable premises had been provided, desired to add "or are available on reasonable terms."

Amendment moved— In line 26, after 'provided' to insert ' or are available on reasonable terms.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

could not accept this Amendment. It would be impossible for coroners' inquests to be hung up while a search was being made to ascertain whether there were premises obtainable on reasonable terms. The Clause went quite as far as was possible in prohibiting licensed premises being used where other suitable premises were available.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

moved to insert a new Clause on behalf of the Under Secretary of State for War. He explained that regimental canteens run by the regimental authorities themselves did not require licences or certificates from the justices, but at present canteens that were worked by civilian contractors, under agreement with the regiments concerned, did require licences. The Amendment was framed so as to avoid the necessity of regiments having to get licences when they wished to make agreements to hand over their canteens to be managed by contractors.

Amendment moved— To insert as anew Clause:—Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, it shall not be necessary for a person holding a canteen under the authority of a Secretary of State or of the Admiralty to obtain a justice's licence or certificate to enable him to obtain or hold any excise licence for the sale of any intoxicating liquor, and an excise licence may be granted to any such person accordingly."— (The Earl of Hardwicke.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 amended and agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:—

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

moved to insert "if it thinks fit" after the words "any person may" in Clause 26, which provided that "where a club has been registered in pursuance of this Act a Court of summary jurisdiction, on complaint in writing by any person, may make an order directing the club to be struck off the register on all or any" of the grounds set out in the subsections. The object of the Amendment was, he said, merely to mark clear that the Court had a discretion in the matter.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 20, after 'may' to insert 'if it thinks fit,'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said the Government regarded the Amendment as a very necessary one, and they accepted it.

Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

then moved to omit Sub-section (e) "that persons are habitually admitted to the privileges of the club who are not members or entitled under the rules of the club to the privileges of members; or" and to substitute for it the words in his Amendment as one of the grounds for striking a club off the register.

Amendment moved— To leave out lines 29 to 31, and to insert 'that persons who are not members are habitually admitted to the club for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor; or.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)

LORD BELPER

said he would accept the Amendment if the word "merely" was inserted after the word "club."

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,

would not resist the insertion, although he thought such a word as "merely' would to some extent spoil the Clause. For example, a man might urge that, it' he sat down, he had gone into the club to rest, and not "merely" for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

moved the insertion of an additional ground for striking a club off the register, and said it was undeniable that off-supply at some clubs was much abused.

Amendment moved— In page 12, line 39, after Sub-Section(h) to insert as a new Sub-Section,(i) that abuses have arisen from the supply of intoxicating liquors to members on the premises for consumption off the premises"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

LORD BELPER

said this Amendment was covered by one of the sub-sections dealing with the proper management of the club.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed as amended. [No. 158.]

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.