HL Deb 29 May 1905 vol 147 cc5-31

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I shall not find it necessary, I am sure, to trouble you with any lengthy speech, partly because the matter is in itself so simple, and partly because the subject with which I am dealing is already familiar to most of your Lordships. Those especially of your Lordships who are accustomed to take your place in the county business on the licensing bench are familiar already with practically everything that this Bill contains, and know he arguments that may be used on either side. The proposals that I now make are entirely consonant with the discussions which took place in this House last year, and which are clearly within the remembrance of your Lordships. There is one point upon which I desire first to say a word. I find, from remarks which have come to me from outside, that it has been supposed that what took place last week in the other House was by some kind of conjunction or arrangement to synchronise with what your Lordships are asked to do to-night. There is no foundation whatever for that idea. The date for the Second Reading of this Bill was fixed long ago, and I had no idea that a similar subject was going to be ventilated within two days in the House of Commons. But it is impossible to deny that the reception which proposals very much more drastic than anything I suggest met with in another place, and in the country, ought to be an encouragement to those of us who desire to see this very modest Bill passed into law.

Quite briefly, this Bill proposes to give power to the licensing bench to regulate the hours of week-day closing according to the popular demand, but within certain very clearly-defined limits, so as to avoid any thing that can reasonably be called hardship either to the drinking public or to the sellers of liquor. Under the existing law public-houses in London are open, not by the will of the magistrates but by statutory provision, from five in the morning till half an hour after midnight. They are open in towns and populous places from six in the morning till midnight, and in the country from 6 a.m. till 10 p.m., speaking roughly. By this Bill magistrates may control the hour of closing, but, however enthusiastically inclined they may be to proceed in this direction, they must not direct a public-house to be closed before nine o'clock in the evening on any day other than Saturday or Sunday, or before eight o'clock upon Saturday at the very earliest; and I myself have no anticipation that magistrates would be very apt to use the extremest power so given to them. In the next place, this Bill would give power to magistrates to limit the hours of Sunday opening to one hour at mid-day and one hour during the evening, and, if they think it desirable, to order that the drinking then should take place only off the premises. Do not let any of your Lordships suppose that the Bill provides that this is what shall be done; it merely provides that the magistrates shall have the power to do this if after consulting public opinion they find it desirable. The third main provision of the Bill is that in every case the magistrates shall take steps to satisfy themselves as to public opinion in the locality. The object, then, is perfectly clear, and I need not dwell further upon it.

What is the demand for this Bill? If your Lordships pay any attention at all to petitions presented to the House, you will have found that that demand is pretty far-reaching and widely spread. I myself have presented sixty petitions to-night, and very many more on previous occasions, and a large number of your Lordships have, I know, presented other petitions on the same subject. I have no doubt that many noble Lords—I think I see it in the face of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Wemyss—will say that these petitions all come from temperance folk, and that they do not really represent the popular demand; but we can go a great deal further than the mere petitions from temperance societies, though I should be the very last to discount their importance in the way it is sometimes discounted outside this House. The petitions that come from temperance societies largely come from men who have devoted quite an exceptional amount of attention to this subject in all its branches, and, as the petitions which I have presented show, they emanate by no means from fanatical and extreme partisans alone, but from those who avoid those characteristics altogether. But, quite apart from that, I can show a very large amount of support for what is here proposed from other sources than what is ordinarily called the temperance party. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by representatives of the trade as well as other people, spoke quite strongly on the subject. With regard to the hours of closing, they say— We should welcome some further curtailment, but we do not think that public opinion will sanction any earlier hours of closing in the evening on week-days at present. I call your Lordships' attention to the careful reserves that are there. They do not think that public opinion will support it "at present." Well, since then there has been a very large voice of public opinion which has made itself felt on this subject; and, in the event of public opinion being hostile to what is here proposed, the magistrates under the provisions of the Bill would not interfere. The Minority Report of the Royal Commission, signed by nearly half of the whole Commission, speaks on this subject in a strong and clear way. It says— Less attention than the question deserves and leas than is given to it in Ireland has been paid in England to the important subject of evening closing hours. It is generally acknowledged that drunkenness is greatest in the last hour or two of the day, the "fierce drinking," as one witness characterises it, occurring between ten and eleven o'clock, and this is especially the case on Saturdays, days of leisure and of money, without the restraining influence of the prospect of early work next morning. … Conditions and habits are so various that it is not prudent to lay down an absolute limit without exceptions, and here, again, we would recommend that the licensing authority should be invested with the discretion to close two hours earlier than the present hour. The Act which was passed through Parliament last year gives to the licensing magistrates power to do this in all cases, of new licences. Therefore, the new licences which will be issued henceforth may contain such a restriction as is here proposed, and that seems to show that there is nothing wrong in the principle of the licensing magistrates having this discretion. Public opinion has in very many of the large cities and large districts been directed to this subject, and I will read to your Lordships two of the many resolutions connected with this subject which have been passed by various public bodies. In July of last year the London County Council passed the following resolution, nemine contradicente— That this Council, being of opinion thas licensed houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor are kept open till too late an hour, urges His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department to promote legislation to confer powers on the licensing justices, enabling them to make regulations with respect to the time of opening and closing such premises in the County of London. To take an example from a distance, I quote from the city of Liverpool, where the following resolution was passed by the corporation and signed by the Mayor— That this council being of opinion that houses licensed for the sale of intoxicants are allowed to open at too early an hour, and are kept open till too late an hour on week-days, and believing that these arrangements are detrimental to the best interests of the community, a petition be presented to His Majesty's Government praying that power may be conferred on licensing justices to close at their discretion all or any of such licensed premises in any portion of the whole of the city of Liverpool at an earlier hour than 11 p.m. on week-days and 10 p.m. on Sundays, and also to keep the same, or any other licensed premises, closed on week-days beyond the present hour of opening at 6 a.m., and that the Lord Mayor be requested to affix the Corporate seal to the petition. I have quoted a great city in the North as well as the London County Council in the South. Again I repeat that the general point of this Bill is to leave discretion with the licensing magistrates.

And this is to be noted, because people talk as though, if the Bill became law, all public-houses would be closed early, whatever the popular inconvenience.

It is said, for example, that it would be simply intolerable if places of refreshment in the neighbourhood of theatres were to be closed at the time the performances conclude. Of course it would be; and no magistrates in their senses would think of bringing about a condition of things which would be a legitimate grievance to a very large number of English citizens; but the power to close at an earlier hour in places where such closing would not be detrimental ought not to be withheld merely because there are other places in which no bench of magistrates in their senses would think of exercising their power in a direction which would inflict so much hardship.

I would ask your Lordships' attention for a moment to the object-lesson set by Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that in Scotland up to the year 1887 the hours of opening and closing were regulated by statute, but in that year the discretion was given to the licensing magistrates to curtail, within certain clearly-defined limits, the hour of closing in the evening. The House of Commons passed a measure making that provision applicable to the whole of Scotland, but in your Lordships' House an Amendment was carried providing that the large burghs, those over 50,000 inhabitants, should be exempt from this measure. Sixteen years passed, and in the year 1903 it was moved and carried through Parliament that the power of exemption in the case of these large cities should be taken away. It had been found that the provision worked so well in other places that it was felt it would work well in the large cities also, and from that time the magistrates in those cities have taken advantage of this provision. It is impossible to find a better object-lesson of the way in which this kind of thing works. I rest strongly upon the example which has been set in Scotland, and the way in which it has been found to correspond with the public taste and public inclination that the evening hour of closing should be an earlier one.

So much for the week-day part of this question. I now come to the portion of the Bill which deals with Sunday. Under the existing law public-houses in London open from on to three o'clock and from six to eleven o'clock. Elsewhere they are open from 12.30 to 2.30 and from six to ten o'clock. This Bill would give the magistrates power to restrict the hours of opening to one hour in the middle of the day, if they thought such a restriction necessary, and to one hour in the evening, if they thought that restriction necessary. It would further give them the power, if they thought it to be right, to say that the Sunday drinking should be done off the premises and not in the public-house. The Majority Report of the Royal Commission was in favour of some curtailment of the hours of opening or Sunday, partly in the interests of the public, and partly in the interests of the employees in those licensed houses. The Minority Report was in favour of almost exactly what I am asking your Lordships to accept to-night. It is not, I say again, suggested for a moment that the rule should be made applicable all over the country, but that the licensing magistrates should have power to take local conditions and circumstances into account, and in the extremest case to reach the point I have mentioned. That is the utmost extent to which the Bill goes.

It will be open to your Lordships in Committee to limit still further the powers of the licensing magistrates. I need not say I shall be perfectly ready to listen to Amendments in that direction, provided the principle of the Bill is carried out and the licensing magistrates are allowed this discretion. Will your Lordships notice how widely different that provision is from the provision which only escaped being carried by six votes in the House of Commons on Friday last? It was there proposed that there should be practically complete Sunday closing. The arguments brought against it came to this, that you must not take the example of Scotland; that in Scotland people drink whisky, in England they drink beer; whisky will keep, beer will not; you cannot draw your beer on Saturday and drink it on Sunday. I quite agree, and my Bill accordingly provides that the public-houses should be open at the time when working men want their beer. I provide for all that. This Bill will not enable the magistrates, even if they desired to do so, to close the public-houses throughout the Sunday, but it does enable them, remembering that the public-house is the poor man's cellar, and that beer will not keep, to allow public-houses to remain open at the hour when the beer is wanted for meals at home.

This is a moderate measure. I am not one of those who have ever been able to join the advance wing of fanatical temperance reformers; and this Bill is one which enables, in the most moderate, reasonable, and restricted manner, the popular demand to be met by the licensing justices.

What are the obvious objections to this Bill? We shall at once be told that we legislated only last year upon this subject, and that we cannot reopen the whole question now. Certainly not; but will your Lordships carry your memories back to what passed in Committee last year, when we were suggesting careful Amendments? The noble Lord representing the Home Office and others urged us not to overload the Bill with fresh matter, however excellent. We were told that there was no such thing as finality, and that if we wanted other things we must proceed separately later. It was said that the powers of magistrates could always be strengthened if it was found necessary. It is in obedience to that kind of suggestion that I bring forward this independent measure. It is entirely harmonious and consistent with what we did last year, when we were giving increased power to licensing magistrates and trusting them to exercise that for the good of the community as a whole. That it would be good for the community as a whole to diminish the late evening hours at which public-houses are open, I do not believe any one of your Lordships who knows the condition of the country will deny.

This is one of the cases in which we are dealing, not with the use, but with the abuse of places of public refreshment and entertainment. The spectacle which is presented by the public-houses in the more densely-populated parts of our towns at a late hour on Sunday night or on Sunday afternoon after the midday meal is over, when men and women gather there certainly not for legitimate refreshment, but for something else, is of itself, I believe, quite sufficient to justify us in giving the magistrates power to deal with this illegitimate and unwholesome drinking, should the community so desire it. I appeal without hesitation to those of your Lordships who are most familiar with the sights which our great cities present either late at night, or on Sundays, and I ask you to bear those scenes and sounds in mind in the votes you will give on this Bill. It may be said that the Majority Report of the Royal Commission distinctly thought it would be better that the hours should be definitely fixed by statute than that there should be a permission to magistrates to vary the hours in different districts. That was at the time a plausible argument, but at all events it has gone now, because by recent legislation you have given this power of magisterial variation in all cases of new licences. The uniformity which was the sole basis upon which the Majority Report objected to give that power to magistrates has now for ever disappeared.

In recommending my Bill to the House I have not thought it necessary to base my advocacy of it on moral grounds. Of course, the religious and moral aspect of the question appeals most to me, but I know that your Lordships are all of one mind on that matter, and that it does not require argument. I have endeavoured to argue the question on practical, ordinary grounds in the interest of the community at large, and for the reason that, as the responsibilities of the licensing magistrates have been increased by recent legislation, their discretionary powers ought also to be increased; and it is with confidence that I submit the Bill to your Lordships.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

My Lords, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose the Bill of my right rev. friend and archiepiscopal fellow-countryman; but although it is, as he said, a modest Bill, it would impose further restrictions upon human liberty, especially upon that of those who are cellarless—the great mass of the population. The public-house is an essential element in one present social state, and we have no right to unduly interfere with it. The publican is a public servant, the licensee of the Government. Interference with liberty began with Mr. Gladstone's Irish legislation, and every year legislation in this direction places further restrictions upon liberty. Now it would be well for your Lordships, when you are told the great evil that results from drink and drunkenness, to study the figures. Some years ago I was told that a very distinguished medical man, a countryman of mine, had said that of the total number of deaths more were caused by over-eating, by eating unwholesome food, and too much of it, than by alcohol. I wrote last night to this gentleman—he is a most distinguished professor—and got this wire from him this morning— Am of opinion that over-eating and bad food cause as serious effects as excessive drinking. Further, I saw my own medical man to-day, and he endorses this view. Moreover, I hold in my hand official data on the subject which cannot be disputed. It is the Monthly Return of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages registered in eight of the principal towns of Scotland, with the causes of death; and I find from this that during the month of April, 1905, there were registered in the towns of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, Paisley, Leith, Greenock, and Perth, 2,446 deaths. "Alcoholism" is one of the many headings under which deaths are here registered and I should like to ask my right rev. friend who has brought in this Bill how many of those deaths he thinks were from alcoholism. Will he give a guess? He prefers not to. Well, I think he would be very far out in his estimate if he did. There were only five deaths from alcoholism out of a total of 2,446, my Lords, in the whole of these towns throughout the month of April.

Then I have recently read in newspapers that it has been shown by scientific medical inquiry that taking fifty-one as the age to which the pure-water drinker lives, it is found that the unmitigated drunkard lives two years longer. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack doubtless remembers the case of Jane Cakebread, who was convicted hundreds of times for drunkenness; yet people of that type it is shown live longer than water drinkers. And it is further shown that the moderate users of alcohol, such as your Lordships, live twelve years longer than water-drinkers. These are remarkable facts, and should be borne in mind by those who declare that alcoholism is a great injury to the human race. But what I feel very strongly is the way in which the publican, who, after all, is as said a public servant, is spoken of and dealt with. There is no feeling of justice towards him by those who are in favour of suppressing all alcoholic drink. The Government last year brought in a Bill to do justice to the publican, and were, and are still, denounced for it; and the story goes that in the new Newcastle programme of my noble friends on my left they are going to make an assault on that Act. My impression is that they will leave it alone. I believe there will be fewer votes to be act by touching it than by leaving it alone. You cannot but deny that justice was not done to the publican before, and that all that the Government did was to put him in the same position that publicans occupy in Ireland, where, if they lose their licences through no fault of their own, they are compensated.

There is another point with regard to alcohol which should be borne in mind. Nature, more or less, demands alcohol, and it has been found that flowers, if they are inclined to fade, benefit if alcohol is put into the water in which they are placed—it is a pick-me-up to them. Do not imagine, my Lords, that I do not sympathise with those who wish to suppress drunkenness; I think the drunkard is a great nuisance, but he will not be put an end to by this sort of legislation. He will get his drink somehow, while the sober man will be made to suffer by his means of ordinary enjoyment being restricted. There are three reliable remedies for drunkenness. The first and the real remedy for the state of things which the right rev. Primate desires to alter would be found in a Bill to excise surgically the gustatory nerve, so that people could not distinguish between the taste of beer and water, or champagne and porter. The operation might be performed on children at the same time as vaccination. That would be an effective course, but I do not think my noble friends who favour this legislation would be likely to bring in a Bill for the purpose.

Then it must be admitted that time in this matter shows a great improvement in the habits of the people. I can go a long way back, and can remember the time when there were what were called "four-bottle men"; that is to say, men who would sit down after dinner and soak and get rid of two, three, or four bottles. There is no such thing now. It is difficult to find "four-glass" men now, and perhaps a couple of glasses of claret or a glass of port is all that is drunk after dinner. Depend upon it, all these things go by example; and just as the customs of the upper and middle classes have improved, so gradually will those of the working classes, and that without restrictive legislation. There is another cure, and it is, I believe, the only one that we can practically use—that is, the police. I hold that a drunkard is a nuisance. Dr. Wallace, in another place, said that a thorough drunkard, if he was drunk and incapable, was no nuisance. The nuisance is the drunken man who goes "serpentining" in his walk, and butting up against people. I hold that any man who is in that state should be arrested as a nuisance, shut up, and confined, and those who manufacture these nuisances should lose their licencés if it could be shown that they habitually turned out drunken men. That, I believe, is the only practical and sensible way of dealing with the question.

I have not entered into the details of this Bill. I object to it as a further restriction of human liberty. Those who have watched the legislation of this country must have seen how, since 1870, it has, as I have said, more or less interfered with liberty. We used to boast that we were a free and unbureaucratic people. We are becoming less so every day. There is interference going on in every direction, and if it is continued we shall probably become, instead of a free and unbureaucratic people, one of the most Government-ridden people in the world. I wish, before sitting down, to read a quotation to which I am sure your Lordships will give the weight which the bravery and the eloquence of its author demand. Let me first read the quotation and then say whence it comes— I entertain the strongest dislike to the permissive Bill. I cannot, perhaps, express it in a stronger form than by saying that, if I must take my choice—and such it seems to me is really the alternative offered by the permissive Bill—whether England should be free or sober, I declare, strange as such a declaration may sound, coming from one of my profession, that I should say it would be better that England should be free than that England should be compulsorily sober. I would distinctly prefer freedom to sobriety, because with freedom we might in the end attain sobriety; but in the other alternative we should eventually lose both freedom and sobriety. He winds up— If I was compelled to choose between a law which destroyed liberty, and a law which left intemperance, to a certain degree, untouched, I should vote against the law that destroyed liberty. I believe liberty to be the life of a nation; you cannot destroy the liberty of a nation without destroying all its noblest qualities, and if you destroy all the noblest qualities of a nation, and turn the people into slaves, in the end you promote intemperance, as you do also almost every vice that belongs to slavery. I think my right rev. friend knows whence that passage comes. It comes from one of the ablest, and, as I have said, bravest and most eloquent of men. That statement was made in 1872 from these benches by Bishop Magee, of Peterborough, who subsequently became Archbishop of York; and it is because I agree heart and soul with those eloquent words that I venture to oppose the Bill now before the House on the broad principle here stated, and to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

Amendment moved— To leave out the word 'now' and add at the end of the Motion the words, 'this day three months.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

My Lords, I am entirely with the noble Earl who has just sat down, in the matter of human liberty, but in all civilised countries we must be assured that a man does not exercise his liberty to the detriment of his neighbour. The noble Earl himself allows that he would in certain cases curtail that liberty; he would curtail it in the case of the "serpentine" walker, and in the case also of the man who offends in regard to his licence by manufacturing the "serpentine" walker. It is obviously clear that there must be limits to liberty in certain directions. What are the factory laws but limitations of liberty? Why do you object to one man sleeping on another man's doorstep? That action is an interference with the man's liberty. The whole history of legislation in regard to the drink traffic has been one of restriction and not of extension. The noble Earl spoke of overeating. When we find that the fact of butchers' shops being open up to a late hour at night sends men home to "beat their wives and illtreat their children I think it will be time then to bring in a measure to shut up those butchers' shops at an earlier hour. I have never heard that if a man offends by taking another plate of meat he loses self cont- rol and is inclined to go on ordering plate after plate of meat to the detriment of his health and the impoverishment of his family. The noble Earl spoke of the object of those who support this Bill as being really prohibition.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

On the road to it.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER

I doubt whether we shall ever reach the end of that road. I have no such object. I do not think that if I had the power of shutting up every public-house in England I would exercise that power. I recognise that there must be these public-houses. The only thing that we ask is that they should be conducted under restrictions which seem to be good for those for whom these houses are opened. That really underlies the whole purpose of the Bill. I would point out to the House that the Bill, after all, is only a permissive Bill. What does that mean exactly? It means that those for whom these houses are supposed to be opened shall have the liberty of appealing to the magistrates in order that their wishes may be endorsed by the action of the magistrates themselves.

I believe from my own knowledge of the working classes that a very large proportion of them would very gladly welcome the passing of such a Bill as this. This is no new idea, as has already been pointed out by the most rev. Primate. Magistrates have already, in the case of new licences, this power, and this Bill only proposes to place old licences on exactly the same footing as new licences. I am not at all sure that I should recommend Glasgow as a place that we should look to in the matter of the regulation of our drink customs, but already the shortening of the hours in Glasgow has done great good. I find from the police reports that the streets are quieter, property is safer, and that the police are able to look after property at an earlier hour, in the night. As we all know, it is during the last hour that the worst kind of drinking and the most unnecessary kind of drinking takes place. My own belief is that if there were one law for all, the publicans would heartily welcome the restriction of hours. They are people who like their liberty just as much as anybody else. The shortening of the hours would, in my opinion, very greatly benefit the physical well-being of the nation. We can hardly read the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration without very grave misgivings, and in spite of what the noble Earl has said the fact still remains that an undue use of alcohol does tend to a very serious deterioration of the physical well-being of our people. It also affects trade and commerce, because we learn from innumerable employers of labour that the late hours of drinking on Sundays do most seriously affect the recommencement of work on the Mondays. This Bill is exceedingly moderate in its tone; it will allow the working classes themselves to speak through the licensing magistrates, and I hope your Lordships will not turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the people of this country.

LORD BELPER

My Lords, your Lordships will expect that I should make a few remarks on behalf of His Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill. In the first place let me recognise, as I am sure the whole House does, the great moderation with which the most rev. Primate explained the Bill to the House. I have no wish to enter into any contest with regard to the main part of his remarks, but shall address myself mainly to the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to change the law which has prevailed in this country for a long number of years that the hours of closing of public-houses should be fixed by statute, and to transfer that power to local authorities within certain defined limits. We are not entirely without some experience of the working of a Bill founded on those lines. By the Act of 1872 discretionary power was given to justices with regard to the closing of public-houses. That Act, however, did not remain long in force. When the present law was passed in 1874 a good deal of discussion took place in Parliament with regard to the repeal of the Act of 1872, in the course of which it was stated by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department that one of the gravest difficulties in the Act of 1872 had arisen from the discretion given to magistrates to fix the hours of closing. It was also stated that the Act had not worked well, because in many cases the magistrates, had refused to exercise their power.

The effect of passing the Bill now before the House would be to give absolute discretion to magistrates not only to fix hours in one district different from the hours in another district, but also to fix hours for one public-house different from the hours of another public-house in the same district; and it would go so far even in country districts as to enable different hours to be fixed in regard to different public-houses in the same village. I do not think Parliament would be well advised if they passed a Bill which would have an effect of that kind. How would that affect the Metropolis? I understand that in London there would be fifteen different authorities for fixing the hours of closing. In a large number of these districts the divisions between the different boroughs are not defined, so that anyone walking about the streets could not tell whether he was in one borough or in another, and in many instances, I believe, the houses on one side of a street are in one borough and the houses on the other side in another. His Majesty's Government hold the view that the greatest inconvenience would arise in the Metropolis if we adopted a system under which the hours would be fixed by different authorities.

The Majority Report of the Royal Commission recommended on these grounds that the regulations as to the hours of closing should be laid down by statute. I am perfectly aware that the most rev. Primate got over that by saying that we had in Clause 4 of the Licensing Act of last year given a power to local authorities to make conditions in granting new licences, and that amongst I those conditions they had the power to fix an earlier hour for closing. I would only remind the House that we had considerable discussion last year on a proposal to extend these powers to magistrates in the case of existing licences as well as new licences, and that these powers were expressly sanctioned as only to refer to new licences. But I if it is argued that the use of I this power at present causes equal confusion, let me point out what is the case with regard to new licences. The strongest possible arguments were used last year to show the enormous number of unnecessary licences that exist, and a great part of the Bill was addressed to doing away with a large number of them. New licences are practically never granted now except in the case of new districts where there are no licences already, but where the public require some opportunity of obtaining alcoholic liquors. I am speaking not only of what I imagine must be the case, but I know that in my own neighbourhood no new licences have been granted except in a new District. If in the case of those new licences the magistrates fix the condition that the hours of closing shall be earlier there is no other house in competition and no injustice is done. I cannot see, therefore, that the provision in the Act of last year with regard to new licences does away with the argument in favour of the hours of closing of public-houses being fixed by statute.

The conditions in Scotland are so different from the conditions in England that, so far as I can understand, the objection to giving the power to magistrates in England does not exist in Scotland. In Scotland you have one licensing authority for the whole county, and therefore none of the inconveniences I have referred to occur in Scotland. I have been given to understand that in Scotland there is a good deal of consumption of the national drink in private houses, and therefore earlier closing would not affect Scotland in the same way. If the Act passed for Scotland is to be quoted for the success of this proposal, as it has been to-day, we ought to have been given time to learn by experience what the effect of earlier closing has been. The report of the Chief Constable of Glasgow states that although the streets are quieter and property is safer, there has been no substantial decrease of drunkenness as a result of earlier closing.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBUKY

My argument was not that there was less drunkenness. There has not been time to ascertain whether that is so or not. My argument was that fourteen years ago the smaller towns obtained the power of closing at an earlier hour, and that after watching that for fourteen years the bigger towns asked leave to follow their example, and have followed it, seeing how well it worked.

LORD BELPER

I only mentioned that because, as the case of Scotland was being quoted, I thought it would be more satisfactory if the introduction of this Bill had been postponed until we had had some further experience as to the success of the Act in Scotland. I have particulars to show that in many parts of the country there has been a large increase of clubs. A strong feeling prevails that some restriction should be placed upon them. The conditions under which drinking takes place in them are less satisfactory than in public-houses, and there is some fear that if public-houses are closed at an earlier hour you will be driving persons to clubs in order to obtain drink. It is true that requisitions have been received at the Home Office in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but I do not think that any of these requisitions express a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. Further experience may show that earlier hours are desirable, but I think it would be better in the meantime to wait and see what the effect is of the legislation recently passed before a fresh Bill is agreed to.

I think the most rev. Primate was conscious of the Government's difficulty in this matter. It is quite clear that no large measure, no measure likely to be contested, could pass through Parliament this session. We have had licensing legislation in two sessions of Parliament, and the Government feel that it would be wise to give time for considering the effect of those measures before passing further Bills. Fully recognising the moderation and the sincerity with which the most rev. Primate brought forward this Bill, I have to inform him that the Government regret that they cannot give their support to the Bill for the reasons I have stated. We do not believe that the particular mode suggested by him in the Bill is one which would form a satisfactory solution of the question, and we feel it would be desirable to allow further time before again passing a measure with regard to licensing reform.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I should not myself have intervened in this debate were it not for the fact that I represent the views, not only of the Church of England temperance bodies in London, but the whole of the Nonconformist bodies as well. I can speak also from the fulness of nine years experience of a London slum district in which the evils of the drink traffic could be seen. Opinion, in London at any rate, among the bodies interested in this question, is united in favour of united action being taken by the magistrates on this question. The noble Lord who represents the Home Office said that it was true that petitions had been presented in favour of the granting of earlier hours of closing, but he did not think that any of those requisitions expressed a wish for any particular mode of giving effect to the principle of early closing, or that the licensing magistrates should have the power conferred upon them as provided in this Bill. I would: call his attention to the petitions from the London County Council and the Liverpool Corporation, in which they pray for the conferring of a power on the justices to close the public-houses at their discretion.

LORD BELPER

I expressly said that I only spoke of the petitions that had been sent to the Home Office. I do not know the contents of the other petitions.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I contend that the provision of facilities to obtain drink after ten o'clock at night is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large. The ordinary working man obtains his drink usually before ten o'clock, and when it is obtained after that hour it tends to the demoralisation of those who gather in the public-houses. Your Lord-ships have no conception how strongly the publican feels on this subject. When I had charge of a poor parish in Bethnal Green I used to call on publicans to show them that the Church did not look upon them as outcasts, and every publican I spoke to complained that he led a dog's life and had no time wherein he might attend to higher personal matters. If your Lordships could see, moreover, Sunday drinking in a public-house in a slum district between one and three o'clock in the afternoon, I am certain that you would never wish to see the spectacle again. These public-houses are crowded with people, and it is not pleasing to see the condition in which they leave the premises when closed at three o'clock. The Bill allows the working man to have his beer "fresh" on Sunday, but we are anxious to prevent the "soaking" that goes on in the public-houses between the hours of one and three o'clock. On the subject of liberty, is it liberty to bind a traffic on the community which it wishes to get rid of? If the provision of facilities to obtain drink after reasonable hours is bad for the people, bad for the publican, and bad for the community at large, for whose benefit is it kept up? I certainly do not entertain the view that the brewers wish to demoralise the community by having unrestricted liberty to continue the sale of drink in the public-houses; and as the present state of things is against the highest interest of everyone concerned I heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, up to the present moment it has only been from the Episcopal Bench that a defence of this Bill has come. I, therefore, think it right that I should explain the view I take with regard to it. I cannot agree with the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Government. I shall not go into that great question which the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, so often brings before the House—namely, the great subject of liberty. I am inclined to share the views of the speakers on the Episcopal Bench, especially in respect of the argument that we are infringing the liberty of the people by such measures. Parliament has not recognised this principle in previous legislation, as may be seen in the case of the Factory Acts. When those Acts were introduced, there was just as much opposition to them on the score of infringing liberty as is to be seen in respect of the present Bill. Yet no one will now say that the Factory Acts have not tended to promote health and the moral well-being of the community.

The noble Lord who represents the Home Office did not argue against the necessity for this reform, but rested his case on the fact that the Bill would infringe what had been hitherto the practice—namely, that the hours of opening and closing public-houses should be uniform and should be fixed by statute. I share the view of the right rev. Prelate that the noble Lord did not urge that, argument with any force in regard to the statute that was passed last year. In the case of new licences the power was given to the licensing magistrates to shorten the hours during which public-houses might remain open. I submit that the Scotch case, as well as the Act of last year, justify the principle now proposed to be extended, while, with regard to clubs, it has not been established that by diminishing the hours during which public-houses are opened, there has been an improper use of clubs, or that drunkenness has increased. I do not wish to go any further into this matter. I leave it to the right rev. bench and others to enforce the great necessity for further legislation in this matter. But I shall be exceedingly sorry if this Bill does not meet with support from a majority of your Lordships.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

My Lords, I recognise the moderation and the wisdom of the remarks of the most rev. Primate, and I suppose no one will question the desire your Lordships all have to do anything in your power for the diminution of drunkenness. My objection to the Bill, however, is that it will do nothing in that direction. Indeed, I think it objectionable on many grounds. It is an annoying thing to any trade to be continually harassed by Parliament as to the conditions under which its members carry on their trade unless something is proved against them. I do not deny that cases of excess occur; on the other hand, there may be cases in which it is a relief to a working man to spend an hour, not for "soaking," but to meet with his friends and associates, just as your Lordships may associate with people in your own clubs. A public-house, properly conducted, is the working man's club, and it is a most unfair thing to try to entirely change a man's course of life because he happens to be of a different class from yourselves. I was surprised to hear the example of the Factory Acts cited in support of the present measure, because those Acts were designed to protect women and children against those who improperly interfered with their health and morals. There is one class of the community I really must appeal for in connection with this measure, and that is the magistrates themselves. Let me read Clause 4 of this Bill to your Lordships— In considering the matter of reducing the hours of opening licensed premises under this Act, the licensing justices shall have regard to representations made to them in any licensing meeting by the inhabitants of the locality, or to any resolutions thereon which may be adopted by any local authority within their licensing district. In what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? Are they to take a plebiscite or what? If I were asked to construe this part of the Bill I should be obliged to say that I had not the least idea how the justices were to "have regard to representations made to them." Magistrates have a difficult duty to perform. They discharge those duties most admirably, and, though many people seem to forget it, gratuitously. They do not, however, always give satisfaction as it is. Imagine their difficulty when they are required by statute to have regard to any representations made by the inhabitants of the locality. How is that to be done? Is it to be by a public meeting, or in what way are the magistrates to ascertain the opinion of the locality? I submit that it is a very undesirable thing to be always tinkering with this particular trade. After the attention Parliament has so recently given to it, we ought at least to allow a year or two to elapse before further legislation is proposed. I heartily regret that this subject is so continually before the House, and I shall certainly vote with my noble friend who moved the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, I did not intend addressing your Lordships to-night, but after the speech of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack I may perhaps add a little to the evidence that has already been given in favour of this measure. In the first place I do not think that we need have any fear about burdening our magistrates with duties which they cannot perform. After all, charging the magistrate with these duties is not a new thing. On the contrary, it has been already tried in Scotland, and there has been no grumbling on the part of the magistrates there. They have done their duty extremely well, as magistrates always do. The Acts that have been passed have worked very smoothly. The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack says he objects to tinkering with this question. It seems to me that it is almost time for this country to do something more than it has done in the past in order to put an end to what we all know to be a national curse. I do not wish to use exaggerated language, but I do not think that anybody can have an idea of what is going on in our midst unless they have done as I have done— visited the public-houses between the hours of eleven and 12.30 at night. I can only wish that the Lord Chancellor would do the same.

The houses near the theatres and music-halls are very respectable and the people very nice indeed. But if one goes further afield into the small public-houses of the East End and other parts of London one sees a very different state of affairs. There one would see between eleven o'clock and 12.30, not men who had dropped in to see friends, but men who had already been to six or seven public-houses, who were already full, and who take a final glass too much at the latest hour of the night. If the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would go and even stand outside one of these houses with the policeman on duty there and see the exit of the last man I think he would change his views about early closing. The experience of every individual who knows tends to show that the largest amount of drunkenness takes place late at night and not in the early hours of the evening. The Lord Chancellor stated that it was most unfair to what is called "the trade" that we should go on meddling with their business unless we could prove something against them. These measures are not brought forward to punish the trade. On the contrary, if it is question of liberty, I cannot imagine a worse slavery than that to which the employés in the trade are subjected. Public-houses have been compared to our clubs. Do we treat the servants in our clubs as the servants are treated in public-houses, where they often work from five o'clock in the morning till half-past twelve at night? We all know that is not the case, and I think some protest should be offered against the attempt which has been made to prove similarity between our clubs and public-houses. The condition of the people employed in public-houses will be bettered by this Bill.

Nothing surprises me more than that noble Lords from Scotland should speak against this measure. It may be said that this provision has not met with complete success in Scotland, but we are able to judge of that from the returns. It has been at work for months in Glasgow, and the returns of police offences during three months of this year show a decrease, and if that decrease continues at the same ratio for the remaining nine months of the year there will be a reduction of 3,400 police cases in one year in that town alone.

LORD BELPER

I quoted the return for the whole year for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that no deduction could be drawn as to any decrease in drunkenness.

THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON

Then I think the noble Lord ought to tell us why the police cases have suddenly been reduced by this large number.

LORD BELPER

I do not know what your figures are. I quoted from the official return for the year 1904 for the City of Glasgow, and in that return it was stated that there were no figures from which one could draw any deduction with regard to any diminution in drunkenness.

THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON

I ask the noble Lord whether he denies the fact that there has been a large reduction in police offences in Glasgow.

LORD BELPER

I have not got those figures.

THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON

I think we have a right to say that the large reduction which has taken place has been owing to the new legislation,,and that the experiment which has been tried is a successful one. Again, employers of labour unanimously tell us that in their own opinion it is doing good in Scotland. The unanimous opinion of those who are interested, not so much perhaps in temperance work as in religious work, who are heartily in support of doing everything they can to minimise the temptations of working men, is that since the original Scottish Act was passed to reduce the number of hours

public-houses were open a better state of affairs has existed in Scotland, except in the large cities which, unfortunately, for a time were exempted. Then came the legislation for the large cities of Scotland; the magistrates at once adopted the earlier hour, and since then there has been a large decrease in the number of police offences in the large cities where the Act has been enforced. This is nothing more than a permissive Bill; the magistrates have the power to do certain things under the Bill. There may be a few details such as those mentioned by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack which may need amendment in Committee, but the principle of the Bill is a good one, and I hope your Lordships will support it.

On Question, "Whether the word 'now' shall stand part of the Motion," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 66.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Abp. Chester, L. Bp. Crofton, L.
Argyll, D. Chichester, L. Bp. Davey, L.
Devonshire, D. Hereford, L. Bp. Denman, L.
Fife, D London, L. Bp. Dunboyne, L.
Ripon, L. Bp. Granard, L. (E. Granard).
Northampton, M. St. Albans, L. Bp. Hawkesbury, L.
Ripon, M. St. David's, L Bp. Heneage, L.
Wakefield, L. Bp. Inverclyde, L.
Carlisle, E. James, L.
Carrington, E. Addington, L. Kinnaird, L.
Chesterfield, E. Ashcombe, L. Leigh, L.
Crewe, E. Avebury, L. Lyveden, L.
Ducie, E. Barnard, L. Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Spencer, E. Biddulph, L. Methuen, L.
Braye, L. Monkswell, L. [Teller.]
Cobham, V. Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) O'Hagan, L.
Cross, V. Burgholere, L. O'Neill, L.
Falkland, V. Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)[Teller] Reay, L.
Sidmouth, V. Sandhurst, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Bangor, L. Bp. Clinton, L. Stalbridge, L.
Bristol, L. Bp. Coleridge, L. Stanley of Alderley. L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E, (L. Chancellor.) Winchester, M Harewood, E.
Zetland, M. Harrowby, E.
Lauderdale, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.) Manvers, E.
Grafton, D. Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlborough, D. Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Rosse, E.
Newcastle, D. Waldegrave, E.[Teller.]
Portland, D. Amherst, E.
Richmond and Gordon, D. Carnwath, E. ChurChill, V. [Teller.]
Wellington, D. Coventry, E. Hampden, V.
Dartrey, E. Hill, V.
Ailesbury, M Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Hutchinson, V. [E. Donoughmore.)
Lansdowne, M.
Linlithgow, M. Feversham, E. Knutsford, V,
Llandaff, V. De Mauley, L. Poltimore, L.
Portman, V. Ellenborough, L. Rathmore, L.
Ridley, V. Glanusk, L. Ravensworth, L.
Hothfield, L. Robertson, L.
Aldenham, L. Iveugh, L. Rosmead, L.
Allerton, L. Kenyon, L. Sinclair, L.
Ashbourne, L. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Barrymore, L. Lawrence, L.
Belper, L. Monckton, L.(V. Galway.) Ventry, L.
Chelmsford, L. Muskerry, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Cloncurry, L. Napier, L. Windsor, L.
Crawshaw, L. Newton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read 2a this day three months.