HL Deb 13 March 1923 vol 53 cc345-74

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD ASKWITH

My Lords, the purport of this Bill is briefly set out in the Memorandum attached to the Bill. That Memorandum says— The effect of this Bill would be to remove the anomalies created by the licensing justices of the Metropolis in fixing different permitted hours of sale in different districts, thus allowing licensed premises on one side of a street to open earlier or to close later than those on the other side. The Bill provides for the closing hour on weekdays of eleven p.m. in the Metropolis and ten p.m. elsewhere; and for a universal ten o'clock closing on Sundays. That very shortly describes the Bill.

Anyone, I think, must feel rather diffident about dealing with the question of liquor. During the Boer war a question arose at the Foreign Office as to whether a certain ship could or could not be stopped outside the port of Beira because it was supposed to have shipped gold. There came down from the Foreign Office to the then Attorney-General a mass of documents to which every official had attached a minute. At the end of the documents was a minute by the late Lord Salisbury, in which he said:—"Whenever gold is mentioned everyone seems to lose his head." The position is somewhat the same in the case of liquor. I notice that it arouses a very militant spirit even in meek men.

Yesterday, at a meeting at the Mansion House, a right rev. Prelate, a member of your Lordships' House whom I see in his place, described the Bill as a monstrous and shameless suggestion. He is reported also to have said that he would die on the doorstep of the House of Lords rather than he would allow this Bill to pass. I do not know exactly where the doorstep of the House of Lords is, but I trust that the right rev. Prelate may "Close his last day" more calmly, less dramatically and less inconveniently than by the method suggested. If that were to occur one would almost feel inclined to withdraw this Bill.

The Licensing Act of 1921 was described by the then Attorney-General, on Second Reading, as a modest measure. There is no doubt that it was a measure that was intended to reduce the extreme laxity which was permitted before the war, and to remove the excessive restrictions which most people had found to be very inconvenient but which had been found to be necessary in consequence of the war. The Bill, however, was not intended as a measure of social reconstruction, or one for bringing morals to the people by order. It was not intended to cause confusion and anomalies, but to put the licensing law of this country upon a simple bash. It was laid down on broad principle that there were to be, throughout the country, eight hours in the day during which liquor might be consumed on or off the premises of licensed houses or in clubs, and that the period in the Metropolis should be nine hours. It also provided that on Sunday the hours should be five. The limits in the country were to be between the hours of eleven in the morning and ten o'clock at night, and in the Metropolis between eleven a.m. and eleven p.m. Permission was given that in certain cases, where it might be for the convenience of districts, the hours might be extended by half an hour either in the morning or in the evening, beginning at 10.30 a.m. or ending at 10.30 p.m. In certain other districts it was permitted that licensed premises should be open at nine o'clock, but the general rule was as I have stated.

Pending the decision of licensing justices, Parliament suggested certain hours as convenient for adoption. Those hours were to be in the country from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., and in the Metropolis from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. With regard to Sunday it was suggested that five hours should be the rule, and that two of those hours should be between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m., and the remaining three hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. One provision of the Act—which is continued in this Bill—was that there must be, for the sake of those who were serving liquor in licensed premises or clubs, as well as for the sake of other people, a continuous break of not less than two hours after the hour of 12 noon, between that hour and 6 p.m. With those exceptions the licensing justices, or those approving rules of clubs, had to follow the hours that I have indicated.

This Bill proposes that the hours on Sunday should be five, of which two shall be between 12 (noon) and 3 p.m. and three between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. With regard to the country it is proposed that in all cases the closing should be at ten o'clock. That is the suggestion that was made by Parliament and which might well be crystallised. With respect to the Metropolis it is proposed that the exact hours which were suggested as suitable by Parliament itself in 1921—namely, from 5.30 to 11 o'clock at night—should be fixed and crystallised; otherwise, the hours in the morning will remain in the hands of the justices, as also will the morning hours on Sunday, while the hours for clubs will remain entirely under the rules of the club. It might have been that the regulation suggested by Parliament would have led to a smoothing over of difficulties, and caused justices generally to adopt such a sensible arrangement, but what followed? I do not wish to say very much about the tribunals, but it is well known that anyone connected with licensed premises is not allowed to sit upon a tribunal, whereas the most extreme prohibitionist is so permitted. There is notoriously a canvassing of justices, and, it is even said, payment of their expenses for going to sit upon the bench. Many justices appear on the bench only at the time of licensing sessions, paying no attention to their duties at any other time.

In addition to this, the rules that are laid down in the Act provide that the justices should hear anyone who can give them information upon the local circumstances of the district. That has led to the hearing of every small temperance club and many small religious organisations. Benches have been met with a continuous succession of witnesses of that class, whereas the ordinary consumer and traveller is not organised and has but little chance of being heard. Extreme pressure is brought to bear upon the bench, and anomalies have been created by the variations in the hours of closing. The result in London itself has been very confusing and also very detrimental. Persons can go from one side of Oxford Street, where the public houses close at ten o'clock, and invade the licensed premises on the other side of Oxford Street, where they can stay till eleven o'clock. They can do the same in a street like Tottenham Court Road. They do the same by crossing from one side of the Thames to the other. There have been disturbances amounting almost to riots in some districts of the suburbs of London where there have been refusals to leave the premises at nine o'clock on Sundays or ten o'clock on week days. The management, in some instances, have had great difficulty in dealing with these invasions of prospective topers who wish to go from one district to another. The police, also, have had difficulty, while the ordinary traveller is very much confused as to where it is possible for him to get reasonable refreshment. It has been calculated that by making use of the anomalies which these changes create that a man intending to drink can add ten hours to the weekly number of hours Parliament intended he should have, and several hours to the Sunday hours.

In these circumstances, and very soon after the passing of the Act, considerable objection began to be shown. As early as January, 1922, a letter was sent to the licensing justices in the City of London calling attention to the difficulty, and your Lordships will agree that a letter signed by such members of your Lordships' House as Lord Inchcape, Lord Swaythling, Lord Ritchie, Lord Dovenport, and Lord Faringdon, contained names of men who are generally considered to be level-headed. A letter was sent to The Times in February, 1922, signed by thirty-seven London Members of Parliament. In that letter they said that they had been promised that the measure was to be very modest in character and that it was not intended that the hours should be shortened from eleven o'clock. In the interests of their constituents and of consumers they desired that 11 p.m. should be the closing hour in London. They further said that the Bill would never have passed if these anomalies had been anticipated.

Public meetings were held last December at which resolutions protesting against the state of affairs which now exists were passed. The resolutions spoke of the "absurd and irritating anomalies which had met with universal derision and reproach." I do not wish to lay too much stress on the wording of the resolution, but there is this to be said, that out of 110 Members who represented the County of London area at the last General Election, eighty-six Members pledged themselves to support a Bill providing for an 11 p.m. closing time. And these Members, and a large number of the thirty-seven Members who signed the letter in the previous February, are Members who know as much about the East end of London and the constituencies there as the tight rev. Prelate who has so denounced the suggestions in this Bill.

I do not know that I can say much more with regard to what the Bill means. It may look rather an alarming measure, but as a matter of fact it is a very simple proposal. It brings equality and certainty on the subject of the closing hour on Sunday throughout the country, and also fixes a closing hour of ten in districts outside the Metropolis; and all the other hours are to be settled according to the requirements of the district. It brings equality within the Metropolis, which consists of nineteen different divisions in the County of London with a small portion of Middlesex annexed to the Willesden licensing district. It brings to them the very hours which Parliament suggested were suitable to the Metropolis, and which in their working would be found to be very suitable hours.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—— ( Lord Askwith.)

LORD CLWYD had given notice to move, That the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill I realise that the House has considerable business to transact this evening and, therefore, I will be brief in stating the grounds of my opposition. Three important issues are involved in this measure. The first is this: In what sense and to what extent would the advantage of uniform hours, of which the noble Lord has spoken, be secured if the Bill passed? The second is, what administrative advantage would be secured; and the third is, what would be some of the immediate practical results so far as closing hours are concerned.

Let me deal with the first point—to what extent and in what sense would this difficulty which has arisen in connection with the difference in closing hours be met if this Bill were passed. As my only illustration I will take the case of London. No one here denies that inconvenience arises through the difference in the closing hours as in the ease of Oxford Street mentioned by the noble Lord, but I submit that in order to measure the real position you have to examine the area of the Metropolis as a whole. Let me give the House one or two facts. If this Bill passed into am dealing with the anomaly of different closing hours—and you hook the case of Tower Hamlets, then you would find that the closing hour there would be 11 p.m. But in the adjacent and contiguous areas of Tottenham, Walthamstow, Leyton and West Ham, the closing hour would be 10 p.m. Take the case of St. Pancras. Under this Bill the closing hour there would be 11 p.m., but in the adjacent licensing areas of Hornsey and Finchley it would be 10 p.m. It is the same in the case of Paddington with the adjacent area of Willesden, and Kensington with the adjacent areas of Chiswick and Acton. I do not desire to take up the time of the House with details, beyond stating the fact that if this Bill were passed to-morrow there would, I think, be a greater area of differentiation in regard to closing hours so far as the Metropolis is concerned than is the case to-day under the Licensing Act, 1921, which the noble Lord desires to amend.

Moving on to the second point, the price which it is proposed to pay for this administrative advantage of uniform hours, I think the House generally will agree that it would be a rather serious step if we were to destroy the discretionary power of the licensing justices in the matter of fixing the closing hours of licensed premises. Many noble Lords are themselves Chairmen of licensing justices and have taken, and are taking, a very useful and important part in the work of those justices. It seems to me that at this time of day it would be a retrograde step to curtail further the power of the licensing justices in regard to this important point. Further, we have to consider not only the discretionary power of the licensing justices, but the fact that behind this discretionary power, as the noble Lord has already pointed out, there is the right given to the public to express their opinion with regard to the local needs and wishes of the community. Without expressing my own views upon the so-called temperance standpoint, I venture to submit that the general trend of events in this country to-day is in the direction of safeguarding, and not of curtailing or of destroying, any opportunities which the public may have of expressing their views, whether they be right or wrong, upon any question which vitally affects, or which they believe to affect, the welfare of the community.

Passing to the third consideration, the practical results of this Bill if it be passed into law, I will take only two illustrations. Consider the case of London in the first instance. At the present time the general position in London is that, broadly speaking, 80 per cent. of the population of the Metropolis are now subject to the ten o'clock closing hour. This hour has been fixed by the licensing justices. It was fixed in the first instance in 1922 under the powers given by the Act of 1921, and it has been generally confirmed at licensing sessions this year. The noble Lord has stated that in his view action was taken and influences were brought to hear by religious and other bodies which ought not to have been brought to bear in connection with matters of this sort. But I think I shall have the general concurrence of your Lordships' House when I say that licensing justices throughout the country must be regarded as able to judge of the conditions which conduce to what they believe to be the best interests of their localities having regard to the considerations which are placed before them.

If this Bill were passed, what would happen in the Metropolis? Automatically, so far as 80 per cent. of the huge population of the Metropolis are concerned, the closing hour of 10 p.m. would be extended to 11 p.m. I think that, whatever our views would be upon the matter at issue from other standpoints, that is a serious step, a step which, at all events, we ought not to allow to be taken without protest. The second case which I will take is that of the country which I know best, North Wales. What is the position in North Wales, so far as the closing hours of licensed premises are concerned? I will give only a few facts. Take my own county of Denbigh. The closing hour throughout that county is 9 p.m., with the exception of two or three towns in which the hour is 9.30 p.m. or 10 p.m. Through-out the adjoining county of Merionethshire the closing hour is 9 p.m., and in Anglesey also the closing hour is 9 p.m. I put. it to your Lordships: Is it fair, when licensing justices in these counties of North Wales have had an opportunity on two occasions of considering the views, wishes and needs of their localities, and have fixed the hour at 9 p.m., that. Parliament should step in and say that the hour is to be extended to 10 p.m.? If this Bill goes to Committee I shall have to move an Amendment excluding Wales from its operation.

In conclusion, there are one or two general considerations which I think ought to be emphasised in connection with the Bill. The first point I should like to make is this. The circumstances under which the Licensing Act, 1921, was passed were unusual. What were those circumstances? Before that Act was passed there was a conference of Members of Parliament of all Parties who sat round a table and came to concerted conclusions. Some of them wanted to go much further, others did not want to go so far, but the net result was a compromise, a general agreement as to main lines, upon which the Licensing Act, 1921, was afterwards framed, submitted to Parliament and passed. It seems to me that if any noble Lord desires to present a Bill substantially altering the provisions of the Licensing Act, 1921, he should proceed in the same way and under the same conditions.

I have strong views upon this question, but I welcome the procedure which was adopted before the Act of 1921 was introduced. It seems to me that in a matter like licensing, upon which there is unavoidably a very acute difference of opinion, the only way is for the parties who are interested on both sides to meet together, to thrash out the question, decide upon a middle course which will command general approval, and then to introduce their proposals to Parliament in a Bill. I would suggest to the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day that those are the only conditions upon which such a Bill as this, amending so soon the Act of 1921, should be submitted to the House.

The only other point which I should like to make is this. It seems to me to be undesirable at the present time to press forward any Bill on licensing which will have the effect of renewing the conflict which so long raged upon this point throughout the country. Two years ago a compromise was reached, and it seems to me only right and fair that that compromise should be respected, at all events, for a number of years, that when a change is felt to be necessary the procedure proposed should be examined by a Parliamentary Committee representing all parties, and that, after that, proposals should be submitted in a Bill to both Houses of Parliament.

I would add that I realise with the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading that there is undoubted advantage in uniform hours of closing from an administrative standpoint, but it seems to me impossible to achieve such a result so long as you have different hours of closing in different areas. If the noble Lord said the hours of closing should be ten o'clock throughout the country, of course it might be possible, from his standpoint, to achieve uniformity, but it is impossible so long as you have different hours for the Metropolis and for the country outside the Metropolis. I hope that the House will come to this conclusion, that every advantage which the noble Lord hopes to get in this Bill can be achieved within the limits of the Act of 1921. What is there to prevent the licensing justices from holding conferences amongst themselves, in areas where this difficulty has arisen, and coming voluntarily to a conclusion, in consultation with public opinion on both sides, as to the best practical way of achieving the result that we all have in view? Upon these grounds, and particularly because I believe that this Bill, if passed, would seriously curtail the powers of the licensing justices, and would not be in the public interest, I beg to move that the Bill be read this day six months.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and insert at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(Lord Clwyd.)

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

My Lords, I am quite aware that I spoke strongly yesterday upon this matter, because naturally, as one who has known the East end a London for more than thirty years I feel very strongly, and I do not think that all your Lordships realise what the difference between these hours of ten and eleven means to us in the East of London. I have taken the trouble to find out what persons in different parts of this district feel on this matter. I do not think it will be realised from what the noble Lord said in moving the Second Reading, that there are 4,200,000 persons under the regulation of ten o'clock closing, and only 200,000 under eleven o'clock closing. Therefore, he is proposing that for the sake of 200,000 people 4,200,000 should be dragged back to the eleven o'clock hour, which they do not want, in order to get symmetry and to help a small number in central London.

I think your Lordships would really like to know what is thought about this change in different parts affected by the Bill. The Mayor of Bethnal Green writes to me as follows:— I hear that you are hoping to raise in the House of Lords the iniquitous proposal to open public houses till 11 o'clock at night instead of 10 p.m., as at present. I had hoped that one of the good results of the war was the ending for all time of the late hours of opening of these houses. I believe that an extra hour late at night would make a great and terrible difference, and would bring sorrow and misery in many Bethnal Green homes. It is largely the children who would suffer. We do not want this extension of time in Bethnal Green, and I hope you will be able to use your influence to defeat the proposal. The Rector of Whitechapel, speaking to me on the telephone, said:—"You can tell them from Whitechapel that the difference between 10 and 11 means the difference between Heaven and hell. The children now get to sleep, and are not awakened by drunken men coming in between 10 and 11, and the women get the wages. I can imagine no more retrograde proposal.

The Rector of Stoke Newington writes:— I was indeed delighted to learn by your speech at the Mansion House this afternoon that you intend to oppose in the House of Lords the attempt being made to extend the hours for the sale of intoxicating drinks throughout London. The blessings brought into the homes and lives of our people throughout this vast deanery (Hackney and Stoke Newington) by closing at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m. can only be fully realised by those who are in the midst of these surroundings—the difference is just the difference between peaceful home and pandemonium! At the last sessions so marked was the improved tone throughout the neighbourhood—as testified by the police authorities—that the magistrates, one of whom was a brewer, and others by no means propitious to the temperance cause, decided unanimously and without retiring from the bench, that the closing hour, 10 o'clock, should be continued. I ought perhaps to add that there does not appear to me to be any real desire on the part of the people themselves to return to the 11 o'clock hour. Once and again those employed in the sale of intoxicating drinks have expressed the ardent wish that we would never again go back to the 11 o'clock hour for closing. Any attempt to extend the hours for sale of intoxicating drinks is in my firm and full belief most retrograde and inimical to the interests of the people whose interest best we seek. The potmen of Finsbury sent a petition to the magistrate against the proposal to go back to the 11 p.m. closing hour.

The Vicar of Islington, which is a large and important district, writes: I heard you say this afternoon that you would be opposing the Bill in the House of Lords which aims at making 11 o'clock the uniform time throughout London for closing public houses. May I please say how convinced I am you have the vast majority of the public behind you? I have talked about this in the ordinary way with many people, and my workers with many more (and of course in the house to house visiting they meet all sorts), but it is only on the very rare occasions, very, very rare occasions, we hear a word in favour of the later hour. Most frequenters of a public house vote for the earlier hour. I am often in the streets at, and about, closing time and I can bear witness to the tremendous difference the earlier hour has made. It would be heartrending to go back to the later hour and its results. I hope most sincerely you will be able to keep off this threatened evil, and I have no hesitation in adding I am voicing the feelings of considerably more than nine-tenths of the Church of England and Nonconformist Church workers of Islington, and of as many other workers in other ways for the welfare of the people. I will trouble your Lordships with only one other district, that of Stepney, with its 150,000 or nearly 200,000 people.

The Rector of Stepney writes:— I do hope you will plead urgently to-morrow against any extension of the closing hour for public houses, at least in this part of the world. We are all thoroughly agreed that the whole tone of the district is improved by the earlier closing now in vogue, that the bed time of the children is made earlier and that there is no real local demand for making the time later. Every user of the houses is thoroughly accustomed now to existing times. It is a sheer gratuitous interference with existing habits to make us later. Those of your Lordships who are acquainted with the geography of London know that in quoting the opinions that I have I am quoting the opinions of considerably more than one million people.

My first argument, therefore, is that this Bill is a retrograde step, and is against the feelings and opinions of every one who cares for the welfare of those districts. My second argument, which should appeal to the Government, is that this Bill is distinctly against the compromise which had been arranged. As to this compromise I do not say that keen temperance reformers were satisfied with it, but we came into it, we have been loyal to it, and it has worked well. When Sir Ernest Wild, representing the licensed victuallers, said that clearly the intention of Parliament was to close at eleven o'clock, the Chairman replied: "Then why are we here to decide at what hour it should be?" He added that the Act of 1921 was a compromise, and the retention of justices' option on the question of hours was part of the compromise.

I have another point. I contend that what has happened in these brewster sessions has actually proved that the public opinion is on our side. During the past twelve months there has been plenty of time for some agitation to be got up at the brewster sessions for an alteration, but when the question came before the brewster sessions what happened? Paddington and Hampstead joined the other places, and, instead of 4,000,000 people (as we could have said last year), 4,200,000 have now chosen under the licensing authorities to adhere to the ten o'clock, and not to the eleven o'clock, rule. Therefore the noble Lord who introduced this Bill is trying to set Parliament against the growing public opinion of London itself.

When you come to Sunday, as has been pointed out, the opinions on that subject have been very varied. Under the Control Board the hour was nine. Then, rather naturally perhaps, when the war was over the time in summer was extended to ten. The subject was afterwards referred to a. Parliamentary Committee who, by seven to five, asked for ten o'clock, and it was made ten o clock. Here again the licensing justices have shown themselves much more keenly alive to the real feelings of the people than Parliament, because six great districts, having been allowed to do so, have chosen nine o'clock, and those who enjoy that hour have not the slightest wish to go back to ten o'clock.

My proposal about central London is this—and I think that in making it I shall be looked upon as a very moderate temperance reformer. There is no reason why there should not be a separate restaurant, licence for dealing with the central London difficulty. I do not want to prevent a noble Lord, if he wishes to do so, taking a drink at a restaurant, either the Savoy or anywhere else, up to eleven o'clock, and I would not oppose a special restaurant licence. But merely, in order to meet that difficulty, to put back the whole of our great population under the eleven o'clock rule would be a step justifying the strong expression which I used yesterday; it is burning clown the house to roast a joint. I therefore hope, in the name of the clergy, of all the Nonconformist ministers, of 900 teachers in one district, and many thousands who would have joined, that your Lordships will support the proposal to reject this Bill, and refrain from doing this iniquitous injustice to us.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, the subjects raised by this proposal have interested me for many years, and it has been by fortune, in another place and here, to make observations upon them. There have been few occasions when I spoke more doubtfully, because I do not find myself in a position which will give me any particular pleasure either to support these proposals or to oppose them. Nor, indeed, is that a disqualification for offering advice to your Lordships, because I do not suppose there is the slightest prospect—and my noble friend who moved the Second Reading will not take it amiss from me if I say so—of this Bill making any progress at all. At the same time, any such proposal as this offers a convenient opportunity for attempting an examination of the lines along which, on this extremely important topic, public feeling is travelling.

At the present time, of all others, an accurate and even a painstaking diagnosis is worth attempting, having regard to the extraordinary experiment which is proceeding in the United States of America. And it behoves us carefully to examine all proposals and all discussions upon this topic in this country with the clear knowledge that there is a party, inconsiderable in numbers but very formidable in its enthusiasm, which is determined, if it can, step by step and piecemeal, to impose upon the people of this country the prohibitionist system which holds nominal sway in the United States of America. Therefore we shall all of us do well to examine every social proposal of this kind with extreme care. And certainly all of us will be the more inclined to give the most extreme care to this or any other proposal inasmuch as the right rev. Prelate who has just addressed an eloquent speech to your Lordships, informed an audience which he was addressing yesterday that if this Bill were carried he would be carried away from the House of Lords—I forget whether he said he would be carried away screaming—

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

Oh, no; nothing of the sort.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

The word may have been "dead" but the threat was formidable in any case. At any rate, we value the presence and the contributions of the right rev. Prelate in our debates sufficiently to make it quite certain that we shall give a careful examination to these proposals before running the risk of involving the right rev. Prelate either in hysteria or extinction.

Now, what is it that the noble Lord has proposed? He has proposed that there should be a uniform system for the whole of London. The administrative convenience of such a proposal is apparent. On the whole I do not imagine that it can be carried out. I do not think it can be carried out, nor, though I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, should I feel myself able to vote for it, because it would involve dislocation and disturbance, and the establishment of disharmony among the various licensing benches in this country, which would not be compensated even by the administrative harmony which would succeed it.

The situation is, of course, a plain one. Certain licensing justices in certain parts of London take one view: other licensing justices in other parts of London take a different view. I am not one who is able entirely to subscribe to the enthusiastic tribute paid to the licensing justices by the noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill. They are a very worthy body of men, who devote themselves with great enthusiasm to the problems that come before them, but in many parts of the country with far less wisdom than enthusiasm. I have had occasion to observe their decisions now for some twenty-five or twenty-six years, and I have no hesitation in saying that the fundamental policy of the licensing justices during the whole of that period has been wrong. Their view has been that the right policy was to make a public house the kind of place to which no really nice-minded artisan would take his wife.

I have observed the manifestations of that policy in a variety of ways. In Liverpool, which, after all, is a very great city, and where the licensing justices have done a very considerable work, this perverse tendency was carried to such a length that they would not even allow licensed premises to have a telephone in the house. They thought that it was adding a convenience to the place; it would be making it too agreeable if they had a telephone. Over and over again, even before that enlightened bench—and it was an enlightened bench compared with others—the Liverpool Licensing Bench, the objection was successfully sustained that people had been allowed to play at draughts in a public-house, and they would not even allow the game of draughts. There was no proof of gambling, even if that were an additional objection, which I, for one, do not concede.

In this great problem you have the lives that are lived by the working classes, you have the striking contrast between the amenities of the lives of the working classes and the amenities of the lives of the rest of us. Once one has realised the profound social and political truth that far the most vital cause of all the class controversies to-day is not the unequal distribution of wealth in life, but the unequal distribution of amenities in life, one realises the perverse folly which has for so many years marred the otherwise admirable public services of the licensing justices. The late Earl of Halsbury, a predecessor of mine, was the founder of a league which I hope still continues its beneficent activities. It was a league which would make the public-house a place in which all wrongdoing or immorality and all excess would be sternly corrected and which yet might be the nucleus and the only nucleus round which a decent social life might be got for the democracy of this country. It was upon those lines and upon those lines alone that true progress would be made.

The right rev. Prelate—and I do not in the least propose to quarrel with his general view, though he will allow me, I hope good-naturedly, to indicate one or two points in which I was not convinced by his arguments—has drawn a contrast between the 4,200,000 people who, if I understand his view aright, are clamouring that they shall not be allowed to drink alcohol after ten o'clock, and the 200,000 or 150,000 more viciously inclined who have availed themselves of the guilty good nature of a more easy bench in order that they might be allowed this indulgence until eleven o'clock. On this point I confess that I am not prepared to quarrel with the central proposal of the right rev. Prelate, and if he tells me, with his far greater knowledge of these districts, that some social benefit and advantage has resulted from closing at ten o'clock instead of at eleven o'clock, I am certainly not prepared to dispute with him. I have not the knowledge of those districts to which he has given such devoted service.

But he will forgive me if I say that I was more impressed by the earnestness of his general conclusion than I was by the severity of the logic by which he established each stage. He said that these 4,200,000 people were very desirous that they should not be allowed to drink after ten o'clock at night, and he said that in the district of Whitechapel the children were not awakened after eleven o'clock by drunken men, in the existing conditions. I do not quite know at what hour the children of Whitechapel go to bed, nor do I know with precision at what hour the men of Whitechapel get drunk. On both of these points the right rev. Prelate has a controversial advantage which I am the first to acknowledge. But if the children of Whitechapel go to bed before ten and the men of Whitechapel get drunk before ten it must be perfectly obvious that the advantage which he sees in this alteration of the licensing hours must be entirely imaginary.

I do not know Whitechapel well. My visits to it have been for entirely political purposes. On those occasions our political meetings have lasted until after ten. I believe that was before the coin-promise to which the right rev. Prelate referred and, therefore, I can offer no personal opinion about it. But I confess I should be astonished if the reaction upon the somnolence of the children and the bibulous habits of the men had been so altered by this artificial change from ten o'clock to eleven as to have produced the remarkable alteration in the social habits of that vicinity which the right rev. Prelate mentioned. If he tells me that this is so, however, I must accept it.

I want to make it equally plain that the witnesses cited by the right rev. Prelate to express the conclusions of that vast industrial population—a population numbering no fewer than 4,200.000 souls—scent to me to be slightly inadequate to discharge this great argumentative burden; because, after all, when a by-election takes place, there are all kinds of differences of view possible as to why it has taken place and there might be only 20,000 people concerned and there might be about twenty explanations of it. But when you come to 4,200,000, obviously a very elaborate psychological and social diagnosis is necessary before one can reach a conclusion. The right rev. Prelate dealt with that in a very easy mariner. He said that he could cite witnesses which upon such a matter would be conclusive. I have nothing whatever to say against the witnesses cited by him; in fact, in order to show my respect for them, I took down their names. They were the Vicar of Stoke Newington; the. Rector of East Stepney and the Vicar of—and there I have written so badly that I cannot—

The LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

The Mayor of Bethnal Green.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

The Mayor of Bethnal Green. I am very sorry, but I have not the advantage of his Worship's acquaintance, and I do not know what his views may be upon this question. Of course, there are mayors and mayors, as the right rev. Prelate would be the first to admit. There are some mayors who share the prohibitionist view, and, for all I know, the Mayor of Bethnal Green may be one of them. The right rev. Prelate will correct me if I am wrong in that view. On the other hand, he may be a man of very strong and even intemperate teetotal views. It is quite obvious—and the right rev. Prelate does not tell me I am wrong—if the Mayor of Bethnal Green is a man who naturally holds severe ascetic views on these matters, that as a witness subject to cross-examination he would not sustain the whole burden of 4,200,000 people.

Having dismissed the Mayor of Bethnal Green with this dubious tribute because I am not aware of the facts, we come to the Vicar of Stoke Newington. Now the Vicar of Stoke Newington and the use made of him by the right rev. Prelate rather remind me of the snowball game in which you get ten people to take tickets. The right rev. Prelate, I ant sure, in the practice of ecclesiastical philanthropy is aware of this snowball game. As I have said, ten people take tickets. Each one of those ten people has to get ten more to take tickets and so on, and if each one has given a shilling to the mothers' meeting or to temperance or whatever it; may be, before that has gone very far a not inconsiderable sum has been amassed. The Vicar of Stoke Newington is really carrying out this game, because his contribution is that it is the desire of the people themselves. The dialectical and probative object of the Vicar of Stoke Newington is to prove that it is the wish of these 4,200,000 people that they should be deprived of any opportunity of obtaining alcohol after ten o'clock; that all this population is passionately desirous that they should be prevented from obtaining alcohol between the hours of ten and eleven o'clock.

The Vicar of Stoke Newington said that, it is the desire of the people themselves, and I should really like to hear the people themselves on that point. We have had the Mayor of Bethnal Green who, as I have said, may be a very severe and ascetic teetotaler. Then the Vicar of Islington makes a further contribution. He says something which, if true, is very remarkable and, if it is true, undoubtedly the right rev. Prelate is entitled to attach the greatest importance to the claim. The Vicar of Islington says that most frequenters of public houses are in favour of early closing, that most of them wish that they should be driven from the public houses at ten o'clock. That is a very remarkable circumstance and it deserves some psychological study. If the Vicar of Islington, whom I welcome as a witness, is right in the view that most of the people who are thus attending the public-houses—and most of whom are enjoying the humble amenities which a comfortable public-house affords to a thirsty and tired man at the close of his day's labour—are in favour of early closing, would it not be a simple remedy that they should all go away at ten o'clock? Think how much more admirable, from the point of view of the education of the public as a whole, that would be. You would see in the very parish of the Vicar of Islington, and in the very diocese of which the right rev. Prelate is so conspicuous an ornament, at ten o'clock, although the guilty magistrates had allowed the houses to be open till eleven o'clock, a troop of the congregation of the Vicar of Islington coming forth and saying: "Enough." Let us not be too forward in restraining unregenerate human nature from realising within itself the opportunities of its own improvement.

I would add only this. If the argument—the solid argument—of the right rev. Prelate he well-founded, how illogical were his last observations! May I be allowed to say of one for whom I have the profoundest respect how very derogatory was that argument to your Lordships. The right rev. Prelate, if I followed the concluding stages of his argument aright, said: "It is quite true that those 4,200,000 people, who have appointed the Rector of Islington and the Mayor of Bethnal Green and the Vicar of Stepney to be their spokesmen in this House, ought to be excluded from the public house at ten o'clock, yet," said the right rev. Prelate, "I am quite in favour of your Lordships drinking till eleven o'clock." I want to know why. The right rev. Prelate said that in the restaurants in London he was entirely in favour of facilities being obtained for drink until eleven o'clock. That is a principle for which I confess frankly I can never stand. I am entirely opposed to class legislation.

THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON

I meant in the case of the traveller who was at a restaurant. That is a different case altogether.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

Many of your Lordships travel, surely? The moment it is conceded that the 4,200,000 people are to be excluded at ten o'clock from the public houses and the moment it is conceded that the licensed restaurant in the West end of London, which is convenient to your Lordships, can be kept open till eleven o'clock and no such convenience is provided in the East end of London, you are face to face with direct class distinction. I do not understand the basis of that class distinction. It cannot be based upon luxury. It cannot be based upon the fact, which I suppose could be established if any one thought it worth while, that the habits of life in the West end tend on the whole to prolong the gaieties of the evening far into the night. If it is based upon that fact you will find yourselves involved in this absurd paradox, that you will have one section of society allowed to partake of alcohol far on into the small hours of the morning and a relaxation made for that purpose, while another section will be refused such relaxation. If there is to be any relaxation at all it ought not to be made in favour of a class which naturally has dinners and suppers till one o'clock or after in the morning. If any exceptional relaxation is to be made it obviously ought to be made in favour of the 4,200,000 who have not the same temptations to stay up till one o'clock or after in the morning.

The noble Lord who moved this Bill has a logical argument in his favour, the great logical argument that there ought to be no distinction between class and class and district and district, and that, administratively, it is intolerable that on one side of a street a house should close at ten o'clock while on the other side of the street the closing hour is eleven o'clock. But although the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has a logical argument, and although the right rev. Prelate who opposed it has an emotional argument and in some ways a well-founded social argument, we need not, I think, greatly disturb ourselves, because nothing is more certain than this Bill will not make the slightest progress, and nothing is more certain than that the arguments which have been addressed from one side of the House and from the other will not produce the smallest impression in the way of having any practical consequences.

THE PARLIAM ENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, perhaps it, would be convenient if I briefly stated the position that the Government proposes to adopt in regard to this Bill. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill read to us from the Memorandum with which he has prefaced his Bill in order to point out that this measure is to remove the anomaly created by licensing justices in the Metropolis fixing different hours in different districts for the sale of alcohol. This anomaly is readily admitted by all, but it is an anomaly which, once you admit that the decision of these matters should be vested in the hands of licensing justices, is inevitable. If this Bill were passed the anomaly would still continue. Suppose that, you had a fixed hour for the whole of the metropolitan area, and a fixed hour for the extra-metropolitan area, where those two areas met the same difficulty would arise as now occurs.

The most obvious example, one to which the noble and learned Earl opposite alluded in the concluding portion of his speech, is the difficulty which arises in Oxford Street. That is due to the fact that the division between the petty sessional area of Marylebone and the petty sessional area of St. James's lies down Oxford Street. But the north of Oxford Street is only a small portion of the Marylebone petty sessional area, and the justices of Marylebone, rightly and properly, in making their decision decided that ten o'clock was the right, hour for closing for the whole of the district of Marylebone, as the justices of St. James's decided that, eleven o'clock was the right and proper hour for closing in their petty sessional area. If the noble Lord's proposal were adopted by Parliament it would mean that we should have to go to these justices and say that one or other of their decisions was wrong and must be overridden by an Act of Parliament. That would be a very strong measure, and in view of the fact that the Act was passed only two years ago, one which the Government would be most reluctant to adopt.

The Act of 1921, as I think has been mentioned by more than one noble Lord to-night, was based on general agreement on all sides, and especially on agreement as to the principle of allowing a certain elasticity in the administration of the Act to be left to the discretion of the licensing justices. It is that elasticity which the noble Lord by his Bill proposes to remove from the hands of the justices. I do not think that would be a really desirable course to adopt. I do not think that it would be desirable to deal with one of the principles in the Act by a single amending Act as is proposed by the noble Lord in this Bill.

I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to another point. It is that this question has been before the licensing justices now for two years and all the possible arguments have been used by learned counsel at brewster sessions for adopting the eleven o'clock rule as against the ten o'clock rule. Brewster sessions took place recently and only two changes are recorded. Both these changes tended to assimilate the hours of the area which changed to those round about it. Thus St. Margarets, Westminster, lest year had a closing hour of 10 p.m. and the licensing justices after hearing arguments agreed to assimilate the Westminster hours to those of the adjoining areas of St. Georges and the Strand. Again, Hampstead and Holborn; although separated by the St. Pancras and Marylebone areas from each other, were under the same licensing justices, and they fixed the hour of eleven as the closing hour. This suited Holborn, but did not suit Hampstead, and the Hampstead people got themselves formed into a licensing area of their own and fixed ten o'clock as their closing hour while Holborn maintained the eleven o'clock hour.

On the whole I venture to urge that licensing justices have shown themselves adequate to deal with the task which was entrusted to them by Parliament, and these two cases go Far to prove that the object of the licensing justices has been to assimilate those areas which are adjacent as far as possible to one another in regard to the closing hour. A map London will show this, if it is examined. The eleven o'clock rule is adopted, practically, for the centre of London with the exception of the City of London, where the closing hour is 10.30 p.m., while the rest of London has adopted ten o'clock as the closing hour. In spite of the anomalies which undoubtedly exist, the principle of giving power to the licensing justices, which was accepted after grave deliberation and perhaps at some sacrifice by those who held strong views in an opposite direction, is one which has stood the test of time, and to abolish it and set up an arbitrary control by Parliament is a measure which would require grave consideration. It is certainly a course which the Government would follow with great reluctance at the present moment.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this measure told us that there was behind him a large amount of popular opinion in support of the reform he is advocating. It is, of course, quite impossible to tell clearly what proportion of the people may be in favour or against a later hour of closing, but it is significant that it has been found perfectly easy to obtain a petition in favour of the earlier hour in some of the poorer streets of London. If popular opinion was against a ten o'clock closing it would have been almost impossible to have found anyone in those streets who would have exposed themselves to the opprobrium of their neighbours by signing that petition. The noble Lord also told us that various meetings have been held in support of the later hour. I have no doubt that meetings have been held. I know of one, an important meeting in a great hall crowded where only with the greatest difficulty a resolution was carried in favour of the later hour.

The real reasons on which I base my opposition to this measure are two. The first is that the later the hour the more drunkenness usually results. When the hour moved to eleven o'clock in the Metropolitan area there was at once an increase of drunkenness, by something like 50 per cent. in 1921; and some time ago in a large city in Scotland careful investigations which were carried out showed that the greater amount of drunkenness took place in the last hour. But the real reason why I am opposing this proposal and venturing to address your Lordships for the first time is that eleven o'clock is an hour which will be harmful to the health and welfare of the children. The noble Earl opposite who has spoken doubted whether this would be actually the case, but we have to remember that in the overcrowded districts of our great towns bed-time is regulated by the hour of closing the public-house. Outside public-houses you find large numbers of children waiting until their parents come out and open the room in which probably all of them are living and sleeping.

In one district in South London between 9.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. 120 licensed houses were visited in 1921, and it was discovered that outside then were 229 perambulators and 713 children, apparently under ten years of age. That investigation was carried out by competent and careful people, and if a similar investigation was carried out between the hours of nine and ten any Saturday night large numbers of children would be found waiting for their parents. The same thing is true, though not to such an extent, of every night of the week. One of our social workers writes me as follows: Careful investigation has shown that young children do not go to bed until their parents do and it is usual to see them hanging round the doors of the public houses at closing time. When the hour of closing was not until 11 o'clock it resulted in the children not going to bed until nearly midnight. This is naturally very detrimental to their health and also to their education. But that is not all. There are, of course, numbers of parents who keep their children in their houses. When closing hour comes and people come out of the public-house, it is well known that there is a large amount of noise in the street and very frequently in these large tenement houses. In a large tenement building, with staircases for perhaps twenty families who are living there, two or three noisy people, not drunk, disturb all the children in that particular tenement.

It was stated on good authority that when the closing hour was fixed at eleven o'clock, the proportion of children who arrived late at school in all the elementary schools of the poorer districts for the next few weeks was far larger than it had been for many months before. I well remember, when I was a parish clergyman, the head mistress of a large school in a very poor district saying to me: "We can always tell the children who come from homes in which there is drink, not because of their bad clothing or their lack of food, but because they are always tired in the morning: they are kept up so late at night that they cannot possibly attend to the lessons given to them in the morning." If this measure reaches its Committee stage, I should like to develop this point still further. While quite recognising that there are, under the present system, several anomalies which ought to be removed, I do most earnestly hope that this House will not accept the policy embodied in this measure, which will be seriously harmful and detrimental to tens of thousands of our children.

LORD MONK BRETTON

My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, it seems to be doubtful whether this measure has any chance of becoming law, but there is one feature of it which I venture to regard as of great importance. I mean the question of uniformity. I have been serving on the Theatres and Music Halls Committee of the London County Council, and I have been very much impressed, as everybody must have been, by the difference between the licences, let, us say, of the Queen's Hall on one hand and of the Hotel Metropole on the other- Nobody can talk to the managers of theatres, hotels and public halls that are engaged in this business without realising the injustice from which they suffer.

There are other injustices which are not touched by this Bill. I will merely give your Lordships the case of a public-house which applies for a licence. The authority responsible for protection against fire insists upon an exit at the Lack: the licensing authority, which is very anxious that drink should not be sold illicitly, insists upon an entrance at the back and the unfortunate publican suffers in consequence. I feel that it is not only the action of the licensing justices that matters. The control of dancing music, the cinema, protection front fire, and even the position of the theatres, has become so interlocked that when a Licensing Bill does come forward upon the responsibility of His Majesty's Government I think the question of how these authorities are to be reconciled and brought into line, so that injustice both to the public and to the trade is avoided, will have to be considered. I think that such a measure cannot be very long delayed, and when it does come along I hope that considerations such as those that I have mentioned will be duly examined.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I would venture to offer to the noble Earl who spoke on behalf of His Majesty's Government my congratulation on the decision which he announced. I think, indeed, that the debate which has just taken place shows on the whole that very little support would be found in your Lordships' House for the Bill that has been introduced by the noble Lord this evening. It received a little support from the noble Lord behind me, and further support from the noble and learned Earl who has left the House, but even his support was, I think, of a somewhat halfhearted character: it was certainly halfhearted in this sense, that he did not anticipate for this measure any very easy passage into law. I think, therefore, that on the whole the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill will best meet the wishes of your Lordships' House if he does not press his Motion.

The standpoint of a very large number of people in this country in regard to such a measure as this is a perfectly simple one. We do not pretend to be satisfied with the present state of the licensing law. Many of us desire to see a further measure of Local Option introduced. But at the present moment the licensing justices are the nearest approach to Local Option that exists, and therefore we ought to support them in any decision which they reach. We think that they represent as nearly as possible the opinions of the people living in their various districts, and for my own part I would say, speaking from such experience as I have of the work of licensing justices, that I regard that work as being done very well indeed. They take an immense amount of trouble, they bring a large amount of local knowledge to bear upon the subject, and I feel that their decisions in this relation certainly deserve the support of your Lordships.

The noble Lord who introduced this Bill seemed to me to find almost a ground of complaint against those bodies which protested against any lengthening of the hours, in the fact that they were organised. It is well that they should be organised. I have yet to learn that the licensed victuallers and the interests which they represent are an unorganised body. I think we owe a real debt of gratitude to those public-spirited people who come forward in order to represent views of this kind.

I think the point which really decided the noble Lord who spoke last to give some measure of support to the Bill related to anomalies. I confess that I am in no way frightened by the existence of anomalies. We all realise that in any case there should be a different closing hour for the towns and for the country. Consequently, you must have a line somewhere, and you will generally have your anomaly, with a line drawn on one side of the street under one set of regulations and on the other side of the street under another set of regulations. In fact, the only way to avoid that position is to have one universal closing hour for the whole country, and I do not think that has been seriously suggested by anybody.

The anomaly which is presented at the moment by public-houses being open until eleven o'clock on one side of a street and shut at ten o'clock on the other is as nothing compared with the anomaly which may, I think, almost at any moment exist in Scotland where, under the system of Local Option, power is given to a majority of the electors to decree a total closing of all the public-houses in any district. You might find, if the electors voted in a different sense in an adjoining district, that all the public-houses on the other side of the street would be open for the larger part of the day. That is a far greater anomaly, but it is not, I suppose, an anomaly which would frighten your Lordships if at any moment it came into existence.

Finally, I should like to say that this seems to me to be a matter which cannot be dealt with piecemeal, that it should be dealt with in connection with all those other matters mentioned by the noble Lord behind me. I hope that before very long we may have a measure on this subject introduced by His Majesty's Government, and though I cannot suppose that such a Bill will be entirely approved by everybody in this country, I trust that it will do nothing to prevent the wishes of the inhabitants of any district from being carried into effect in the licensing laws.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I should not like this debate to close without saying one or two words in comment upon the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I agree with my noble friend who this evening represented the Home Office, that your Lordships would be unwise to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, but I should be sorry if it was thought that the position which the Government entertain relative to the Bill is precisely the same as that which is most legitimately entertained by the noble Earl who has just sat down. We are not persuaded of the virtues of Local Option in respect of the liquor trade. On the contrary, I have spent a large part of my political life in opposing it, and I have seen no reason to change my view. I am not attracted by the analogy which the noble Earl made of the Scottish Act, which I believe to be a most unfortunate Act, and one which did my best to resist. It is not because we think that it is the business of a majority in any locality to decide whether the minority should drink and what, they should drink—I have never held that view at all—but because we think that this matter of the opening hours of public-houses is a matter of public order, that we take the view which we do.

It is agreed on all hands that public houses ought to be closed at a particular hour at night, and for many years—generations, I might say—it has been the law in this country that, in the interest of public order, public houses should be closed at a particular hour. That is quite a different question from the other question of whether the minority should be allowed to drink alcoholic liquors or not. It is a question of public order. How is that to be decided? It, must be decided, I think—and in this respect I do make a concession to the principle advocated by the noble Earl opposite—largely by the wishes of the inhabitants. It is clear that in a matter of public order the wishes of the local inhabitants should be studied. No doubt the habits of people in different localities differ considerably. The feelings and habits of people in the greater urban districts, like London, no doubt differ from those of the inhabitants of the country districts, and therefore a distinction is made. I will go further. It is found from practical knowledge that the feelings and habits of the people—I am speaking of the best people—are not the same in the centre of London as they are on the outer rim of London, and it is therefore natural that a different closing hour should be established for the two cases.

My noble friend, with whom I have great sympathy, because I do not agree that there is no objection to anomalies, in his Bill admits that there should be power in the locality to decide some of the opening hours, for the opening hours in the morning are still left to the licensing justices. I think he is quite right in making that provision, but surely it is a little illogical to say that the local authority for licensing purposes is to be allowed to determine the opening hours in the morning, and is not to determine the opening hours at night. It would be more reasonable. I submit, to trust them with the opening hours at night, because the difficulties at night are greater than those in the morning. It therefore seems reasonable that the compromise arrived at in 1921 should be continued. I know that a great deal may be said against the manner in which the licensing justices have exercised their discretion in the past. A great deal was said by the noble and learned Earl opposite in this respect. I think it is rather important to clear up a little point in respect, of the noble Earl's speech. He is going to vote against the Bill.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

No, I said I was not going to vote. At any rate, that is my intention.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

From a good deal of the noble Earl's speech one would have thought that he was going to support the Bill.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

From a good deal of it you thought I was not.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend will have seen from the discussion that perhaps with one exception nobody is going to vote for the Second Reading.

LORD MONK BRETTON

I did not say I should.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I venture, therefore, to think that my noble friend, if he will allow me to say so, might be content with the discussion which he has provoked. He has elicited a good deal of informing opinion from various sections, and has heard an account from the two right rev. Prelates who addressed your Lordships of the really great difficulties which beset the poor in the part of London in which they are interested in respect of this question. I think he would perhaps be reluctant, in the Lace of that information, and for want of bettor information, to upset the arrangement which at present exists. At any rate, so far as the Government are concerned, they cannot be a party to upsetting the compromise of 1921, and if he goes to a Division they will be obliged to vote against him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to, and Bill to be read this day six months.

Back to