SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 24 March 1904)

LORD DUNBOYNE
My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would very briefly explain the necessity for it and its object. I am aware that the particular kind of enactment of which the Act of 1901 is a part is a class of legislation on which your Lordships differ very much; but I do not think there will be any difference of opinion amongst your Lordships that when an Act of Parliament is passed it should be made effective and not be allowed to be evaded, as I think I can show the Act of 1901 has been. That Act provides that every holder of a licence who knowingly sells or delivers, or allows any person to sell or deliver, any description of intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of fourteen years, except in corked or sealed vessels, shall be liable to a penalty. These provisions are continually being evaded, for unscrupulous publicans have discovered that by forbidding their servants to serve children except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and by exhibiting a notice to that effect in the public house, they are not responsible if their servants supply intoxicating 585 liquors to children contrary to the Act. This, my Lords, was decided in the case of Emary and Nolloth. In that case intoxicating liquor was knowingly sold to a child under the age of fourteen—as a fact, the child was only nine years of age—in a bottle neither corked nor sealed, by a servant of the publican acting within the general scope of his authority and employment, but contrary to the expressed orders and without the knowledge of his master, who was himself in charge of the premises at the time and actually serving in the bar. It was held in that case, and no doubt rightly held, that the publican could not be convicted of "knowingly allowing" a person to sell intoxicating liquor in an uncorked or unsealed vessel to a child under the age of fourteen. Since that decision it has been found impossible to enforce the Act in many places, for notices such as I have described are constantly exhibited in public houses, and, when a child comes in, the publican has merely to turn his back or become engrossed in conversation with a customer, or go into the bar parlour and the child can be served and no one is responsible, the penalty being attached only to the publican and not to the person other than the publican who serves the child. This Bill is intended to meet that defect. It will not in any way interfere with the legitimate business of respectable publicans, and there are many, I am glad to say, who observe the spirit as well as the letter of the law; but it will affect those who might escape from the law and avoid it in the way I have described. This Bill merely provides that the publican and the person who actually serves the child contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1901 shall be made responsible for the penalties imposed by that Act, notwithstanding that any notice that the servants are forbidden to serve children contrary to the Act shall be exhibited on the premises. The Bill is intended to cure a defect which experience has shown to exist in the original Act. I have stated the facts simply and without exaggeration, and I trust your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time. If noble Lords should be of opinion that the Bill goes a little too far in making the publican liable when his employee serves the liquor 586 contrary to his orders and without his knowledge, I would be willing to meet that objection at a further stage; but I trust that your Lordships will allow the Bill, as it now stands, to be read a second time, and that His Majesty's Government will give it their support so that it may not only pass your Lordships' House but be steered with safety through its course in the other House.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I have thought it right to communicate with the Court by whom the decision referred to by the noble Lord was arrived at. I quite agree that in some respects the law may be amended in the direction he desires. But I think the Bill goes a great deal too far. I think that in the circumstances the last two lines would be quite enough to pass into law, namely— The agent or servant actually serving or supplying such liquor shall be liable to the penalties aforesaid. That could not be enforced in the case to which the noble Lord referred because the Act as it stands makes the only person liable to the penalty the licence-holder, and, of course, the servant, not being the licensed person, could not be properly convicted. To make the master liable in any event would be a mistake, and I could not assent to it. I think the noble Lord has a little misunderstood the decision in the case to which he referred. The ground on which the decision was arrived at, according to the Judges' view of what they decided, was that the master had given express orders to his servants not to do the act complained of. It was not a case of a master endeavouring to evade responsibility by pretending not to know what was going on. He was innocent of the act itself and had given most definite orders that it should not be done. Whether the Judges were right or wrong in the interpretation of fact is immaterial. That was the theory upon which they proceeded. If, however, a publican leaves a person in charge of his business so that he is his alter ego, then undoubtedly he would be responsible for 587 the act of that person. I think that the principle which the Court maintained in that case would be very much shaken if this Bill as it now stands were to pass into law. If the noble Lord is prepared to restrict the Bill to the last two lines which I have read, I am ready to assent to the Second Reading.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON
My Lords, I am very glad to hear the observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and I trust that the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill will agree to the suggestion which has been made. The legislation in question has done an immense amount of good already, and, if the loophole of evading it to which the noble Lord has referred is stopped, it will save the children of this country from the contamination of the public house. This Act, which has been, on the whole, extremely well worked throughout London, and has not been opposed by the brewers and publicans generally, is one of the most hopeful and useful pieces of temperance legislation that have been passed, and it would be a great pity if, by the rejection of this modified Amendment, it should be spoilt through the existence of the flaw explained by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I, therefore, hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.

LORD DUNBOYNE
I may say that I shall be very pleased to accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion and to limit the Bill in the way he desires, which can be done when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.