asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that payments made by officers residing in England on account of donations and subscriptions to Indian Military Funds are charged at rates exceeding by twelve and a half per cent similar payments made by officers residing in India; and, whether the benefits accruing to subscribers in both cases are the same; and, if so, what is the cause for so great an inequality of payments?

Sir, the variations in the rules, subscriptions, and benefits of the several Indian military funds are so great that it is impossible to give an answer to a Question so general in its nature; but if the hon. Member will communicate with me about any particular fund, I can obtain for him all the information he can desire.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, looking to the excessive price of coals and the change in our commercial relations with France, he will take into his consideration, during the Recess, the advisability of placing a duty on the export of coals to foreign countries?

No duty can be imposed so long as the French Treaty exists.

explained that the French Treaty prevented the imposition of such a duty.

That Treaty will expire in March.

But it has not expired yet.

stated that there were several Amendments on the Paper with reference to the hours of closing. The Government had considered the question, and were prepared to modify the sub-section by substituting half-past 12 for opening on Sundays in stead of 1, and closing at half-past 2 instead of 3 in the afternoon. He hoped that hon. Members who had Motions on the Paper would permit him to move the alteration at once, so as to avoid a useless discussion on the sub-section as it now stood. With that view, he should move the omission of sub-section 2 from the clause, for the purpose of inserting the Amendment to which he had referred.

asked if it was not necessary to give a discretionary power to the licensing authorities, who were the best judges of the wants of the district? He had received numerous communications suggesting that 1 o'clock was the best hour for opening.

said, he had no objection, having also received very many communications in favour of the hour of 1; but the discretion of the justices in that matter would, he believed, be rarely questioned.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper with respect to the hours of opening and closing, which he did not wish to move if the feeling of the Committee was against it. There were two points in which his proposal differed from that of the right hon. Gen- tleman. On the one hand, he thought the county licensing committees should recommend the hour of closing rather than the licensing justices; and on the other, he proposed that the margin as to hours of closing allowed to the authorities should be larger than that suggested by the Home Secretary. But while he would not press it at that moment, he would reserve the right to move it as an Amendment to the new sub-section which was to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman, if he should see fit.

thought if 12.30 were not fixed instead of 1 o'clock, the effect would be to alter the whole law in the country districts. He preferred leaving the law in that respect as it was.

said, he had no objection to make half-past 12 the normal hour. He was anxious to give the hon. Member for North-east Lancashire (Mr. Holt) every facility for putting forward his views; but he thought it would be found useless to occupy time in trying to induce the Committee to accept for the purposes of this clause the county licensing committees, instead of the licensing justices.

thought that the quarter sessions was a better body than the licensing magistrates, to whom the discretionary powers as to the hours of opening and closing should be entrusted. They were better judges of what was wanted in each locality, and less likely to be influenced by mere passing or superficial feeling.

said, his objection to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was, that he classed the population of towns and the hours of closing together. It appeared to him that the two things had no necessary connection with each other. In large towns he saw no reason for keeping public-houses open after 10 o'clock at night; but in small towns it might be desirable to keep open later than in large towns, where nearly all the inhabitants were occupied generally in the same way. He considered the proposal of the hon. Member for North-east Lancashire more free from difficulties than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

thought the time had come when hon. Members who had special views on this licensing question should give them up as much as possible, in order that, without any further unnecessary delay, the Bill might be got through. He strongly favoured the opinion, in common, he believed, with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the elected council in any borough, or the governing body in any local government district, should be the licensing authority for the purposes of opening and closing. He did not like the proposal to vest that authority in the licensing justices; but, as the House had shown such a preference for the latter, he was willing to forego his views in order to procure the Bill, which he considered a great improvement on the existing licensing laws, being passed in a reasonable time. The Amendment he had on the Paper giving the elected governing body in any local government district power to define, from time to time, by special resolution, the hours of opening and closing on Sundays, Christmas Days, and Good Fridays, he should withdraw.

considered, before they came to any decision on the Amendment before the Committee, they ought to have a clearer definition of the term "licensing justices" and "licensing committee." He thought the licensing committee should be regularly constituted by the licensing justices, and not consist merely of those licensing justices who might happen to attend at sessions. ["Order!"]

rose to Order, suggesting that the most business-like way for the Committee to proceed would be to strike out the whole of the 2nd sub-section of the clause, and then take into consideration the new sub-section contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and any Amendments which it might be deemed desirable to move on it.

said, that if the subsection were left out the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-east Lancashire could be introduced at a subsequent clause.

said, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment at this stage of the Bill, reserving to himself the right of moving it on some subsequent clause.

agreed that the more convenient course for the Committee and their proceedings would be to omit, by common consent, sub-section 2, leaving the ground clear for the right hon. Gentleman to move his new sub-section, and on that hon. Gentlemen could propose what Amendments they pleased.

then proposed the following sub-section as a substitute for that which had just been expunged:—

"If situated beyond the City of London and the liberties thereof, and the parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of 'The Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855,' and in a town containing not less than two thousand five hundred inhabitants on Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday during the whole day before the hour of one (or, if the licensing justices direct, half-past twelve) in the afternoon, and between the hours of three (or if half-past twelve be the hour of opening, then half-past two) and six in the afternoon, and after the hour of ten (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than nine and not later than eleven) at night, and on all other days before the hour of six (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than five and not later than seven) in the morning, and after the hour of eleven (or, if the licensing justices direct, any hour not earlier than ten and not later than twelve) at night."

said, he was anxious, if possible, to see a uniformity established between the towns and the country. He should therefore move to omit the words "two thousand five hundred" in the proposed Amendment. Country justices would, he was afraid, find the Amendment as it stood impracticable, because if it were said that the hours of closing should be between 10 and 12 in towns not containing more than 2,500 inhabitants, it would be drawing a hard-and-fast line, which might prove a very serious inconvenience. It must be remembered, that there were in this country—and more particularly in the Midland Counties, with which he was best acquainted—large towns surrounded with hamlets and villages, all containing more than 2,500 inhabitants; whereas in an adjoining parish the number might not be so great, and then arose the inconvenience of having public-houses opened in one locality and closed in another at the same hour. How could magistrates defend the existence of a rule so unequal in its operation, or satisfactorily work such a system, there being to the naked eye no difference observable between the two places. He should also move the omission of sub-section 3, as a consequence arising from his Amendment.

was of opinion the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to accept the Amendment. The Bill seemed to him to be very unobjectionable, and his wish, therefore, was to make it a really working measure. He could mention a case within his own knowledge where, a town being composed of three districts, two having more than the stipulated number of inhabitants and one less, the public-houses in different quarters of the same town would, under the clause as it stood, be closing at different hours.

said, he also knew a case where public-houses on one side of the street would fall under the strict 10 o'clock rule, while those on the other side of the same street might remain open till 11.

said, that the distinction between places with a population above, and places with a population below 2,500 had been adopted with careful regard to the habits of the rural population. Under the present law, the evil was, that in country districts public-houses might continue open all night, whereas in adjoining boroughs they must be closed at a particular hour. He thought, however, the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member would not do any harm to the Bill, and had therefore no objection to its adoption by the Committee.

thought the Amendment a very good one, and was glad the Government accepted it.

regretted to find that the right hon. Gentleman, while he (Mr. Powell) had been absent from the House, had altered the hour of opening public-houses on Sunday from 1 o'clock to half-past 12. Having regard to the period at which persons were ordinarily returning from church, that seemed a very undesirable change.

suggested to the hon. Gentleman that one way of getting over the difficulty would be to alter the hours of the services, and begin these at a more rational hour of the morning.

remarked that there was a difference in the time of church service. In the North of England the hours of service were generally earlier than in many other parts of the country.

said, he wished here to call attention to the system proposed by the Bill with respect to licensing justices. According to that, their duty appeared to be the granting and confirming of licenses; but he should prefer a system of appointing licensing committees for particular districts, whose decisions and proceedings- should be subject to the supervision of the Court of Quarter Sessions.

believed, as far as he could judge, that the scope of the Bill was to sanction the appointment of licensing committees.

said, that with a view to test the feeling of the Committee upon the subject, he would move to amend the Amendment by leaving out "licensing justices," in line 6, and inserting "licensing committee."

said, that the choice of the authority for exercising the discretion with regard to the hours of opening was most important. He should himself have preferred Parliament to fix the hours, as it would have relieved the justices from considerable responsibility; at the same time, however, he was so satisfied that the justices were the proper parties to exercise the authority, that he at once yielded. In giving that discretionary power, it became still more important to know by what justices it should be exercised, and every security should be taken that the body should be thoroughly independent. It appeared to him that the licensing committee of county justices, and the licensing committee of borough justices were the proper parties to exercise the power. They had it already as to who should have licenses, and that raised a strong presumption that they were the proper persons to say within what hours those licenses should be used. Parliament had cast upon the persons who would have to decide that question a task that would expose them to much pressure; and, inasmuch as he thought the licensing committee should be more independent than the justices in the petty sessional divisions, and that imputations had been cast on the justices sitting in the petty sessional divisions—imputations which were very often most unjust—in the matter of granting licenses, he was sure that imputations would be cast upon them in the exercise of this discretion. With a view, therefore, of strengthening the hands of the authority to whom Parliament should grant that discretion, he hoped that the body upon which it would be conferred would be the licensing committee of counties and the licensing committee of boroughs. He was certain that no more important question connected with this subject could arise in counties and in boroughs; but in such counties as his own, containing populous districts and many large towns of 7,000 or 8,000 inhabitants, and numerous villages of even 3,000, knowing the pressure that would be exercised, he did hope the Committee would choose the licensing committee of the county and the licensing committee of the borough, in preference to the magistrates in petty sessions.

said, there were strong reasons for limiting the number of persons to whom the power of granting licenses should be given; but when they came to deal with the question of hours it must be perceived that there would be a decided advantage in having a larger number. For his own part, he thought there would be a very general disposition not to alter the hours fixed in the Bill. The whole of the beerhouse keepers would desire to have the hours of the public-house keepers identical with their own; and he believed that the majority of the public-house keepers would be most glad to accept the hours fixed by the Bill. He believed, too, that the large majority of those houses were already closed at 11, and that many of those which kept open to a later hour were so kept open only for purposes of tippling. Still, it was desirable that, as far as possible, the various conditions to which the population of the several districts were subject should be considered, and to that end he had proposed that the power of deciding as to the hours of opening and closing should be conferred on the town councils, and he still preferred the whole body of justices to the licensing committee as the authority to decide on the hours of closing.

remarked that it was hardly becoming on the part of the Committee, when it found itself in the presence of a serious difficulty, to throw it upon other people. They were making a very important change, and he did not see any machinery by which it was to be carried out. In the first place, at what time of year was the licensing authority to fix the hours? The Bill did not deal with that at all. And next, for what period was it to fix them—for he presumed their arrangements were not to be permanent—and under what circumstances and with what notice were the new regulations to be prescribed? [Mr. BRUCE said, that all those points were provided for in the Bill a little farther on.] Yes, with regard to the matters in the Bill, but not with regard to what was quite new. He did not find in the Bill anything with regard to the notice, but there might be in the Amendments. He hoped at any rate that the matter would be very carefully considered, so that there might be no surprise in fixing the hours in the first instance and in changing them afterwards; because, when he observed the kind of agitation that was prevailing in the country on this subject, anything like the possibility of a surprise ought to be strictly avoided.

observed that the point had not been lost sight of. The notice would be the same as that to be given under the Act of George IV.

thought the body to be entrusted with the discretionary power should be the licensing justices and not the county committee, as in a large county it would be impossible for that committee to know the wants of districts perhaps 40 or 50 miles distant.

thought the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Boston was unanswerable.

said, that if he should receive any encouragement from the Committee, he would move in the last fine but one, and press for a division, an Amendment allowing of a little more elasticity as to hours in country places on Sunday afternoon, whereby the justices should have a discretion to substitute the hours from 5 to 8 for those from 3 to 6 in the afternoon.

said, the Amendment would apply to all places except London. He trusted the noble Lord would not think it expedient to press it.

thought the Amendment would too much enlarge the discretion of the justices, for it would enable them to close the public-houses from half-past 2 to 8 o'clock.

remarked that the effect of the Amendment as it stood would be that public-houses could not be closed until 10 o'clock at night. They were now seeking to amend the present state of things, and one step in that direction was by closing the houses at an earlier hour. He would accordingly move the omission of "10" and the insertion of "9."

moved the omission in page 10, line 27, of the words "to bona fide travellers or." He held that this Amendment should be agreed to by the Committee, or else that there should be some definition of the word "traveller." Would a man going from London to Gravesend be a traveller, or one going six miles from home and back?

remarked that his Amendment came before that of the hon. Baronet, and he therefore moved to add, in line 24, "if the convicting justice shall so order." He urged that if a man kept his house open accidentally, through the variation of his watch or clock, for five minutes after the prescribed time, that was a minor offence and should be so classed; and that the justices should not be compelled to endorse that conviction on the license.

observed that the justices constantly dealt with such cases, and they only took cognizance of them when the houses were clearly and wilfully left open longer than they should be. If they were wilfully kept open after the time, that was a serious offence.

Unless these words were inserted, the magistrates would have no discretion in the matter.

They would have discretion as to whether they would or would not convict.

thought the right hon. Gentleman did not understand what he (Mr. Locke) was talking about. The magistrate had certainly the power to convict or to abstain from convicting. But if the offence were a slight one and he did convict, he would have no option but to endorse that conviction upon the license; and it was to be remembered that the third conviction so endorsed resulted in the license being taken away. The magistrate might think that he must convict in a particular case, but that a small fine would be adequate. If, however, he did so convict, although he might not desire to endorse the conviction, as the clause now stood he would be compelled to do so; and if that were the third endorsement, the deprivation of the publican of his license would necessarily be added to the punishment. This was clearly a case in which the magistrate-ought to have the option of endorsing or not endorsing the license.

said, that from the first he had always urged on the right hon. Gentleman to make a distinction between serious offences and those of a minor description. His experience of convictions under the licensing laws had led him to the conclusion that the offence of being open for a short time after the hours of closing should be classed among the minor offences. He thought they had the other day accepted the proposal that the licensing justices should have a discretion in the matter. At all events, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision, and he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would like to point out to him that if the justices were to exercise their discretion in not convicting, then they would not be doing strict justice if they were to say—"This man has certainly committed an offence; but if we convict him the law will oblige us to go further, and endorse it on his license, and as that will be a fatal record against him, we will, rather than sub- ject him to that severe penalty, allow him to go away." They would not be doing their duty to the public.

was in favour of the Amendment of the hone and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), as there was the danger that the justices' clerks, until the fees in such cases were abolished, might be eager to secure convictions against the publicans on the smallest offence.

warmly denied that the justices' clerks, a highly respectable body of men, would be guilty of such a practice.

would appeal to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it would not be a waste of the time of the House to discuss the question further. It had been once decided for the Government and once against them, and his right hon. Friend knew that on every occasion he had voted in the same lobby with him. They were all anxious to carry the Bill, and the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) did not preclude the justices from endorsing the sentence if they thought fit. It merely gave them an option of making the record if they felt bound to convict. His right hon. Friend said they would have a discretion in respect to the conviction, and that they might exercise it in order to avoid inflicting this penalty.

observed that what he had said was, that they would be at liberty not to convict.

Surely his right hon. Friend would admit that it would not be a satisfactory arrangement to make the punishment so severe that the justices would hesitate to convict.

said, that on the whole, as time was precious, he thought it would be better to assent to the Amendment.

protested against the right hon. Gentleman giving way in this manner. Many of those who were anxious to see this Bill passed refrained from speaking on it, so as to avoid delay, and then the right hon. Gentleman imagined there was no opinion in the House but that which he heard expressed. If he went on relaxing those penalties, he (Mr. Auberon Herbert) would divide the Committee upon it.

then proposed, in line 31, to add to the clause the following words:—

"a licensed person shall not be bound to keep the licensed premises open, nor to admit or allow persons to remain therein, nor to sell liquor to any person, but may lawfully close and keep closed the same, and refuse to sell liquor therein, whether closed or unclosed during the hours during which the same may be lawfully open, or any part of such hours."

He would ask the Committee to consider that what they were doing was asserting the principle that a publican should not be at liberty to close his house when he liked. The Committee should not force on him the necessity of keeping it open contrary to his own wish, and it was to meet that case that he proposed the Amendment.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the public had a right to have refreshments supplied to them within certain hours. A weary wayfarer might absolutely require refreshment within the hours allowed by the Bill, and a publican should not have the power to refuse to provide it.

wished to protest against the doctrine just enunciated by the Home Secretary, that it was the duty of Parliament to provide the public with beer. That was a matter that should be left to supply and demand. It was not a question of security or monopoly, and in every district there would be plenty of publicans always ready to give the public beer.

said, that public-houses were not only for the sale of beer, but they were for the purpose of providing refreshment also. As the competition was limited they were placed under restrictions. Suppose a number of publicans should strike in a certain district not to supply travellers who came there for some reason or other. ["Oh, oh!"] It might appear ridiculous; but it illustrated what might happen if they were to do away with the right of the public to be supplied with refreshments within the limited hours.

said, if the hon. Gentleman went to a division he would support his Amendment, but suggested to him that he ought after the words "any person" to insert the words "not being a bonâ fide traveller."

said, he had no objection to the insertion of the words mentioned by the hon. Member.

said, that he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the three last lines in this clause—

"Nothing in this section contained shall preclude the sale at any time, at a railway station, of intoxicating liquors to persons arriving at or departing from such stations by railroad."

The effect of these words would be to authorize the sale of liquor at railway stations at any hour of the day or night, without any restriction whatever; whereas the person who sold the liquor might not be able to ascertain whether the person to whom it was sold had either arrived or was going to depart by the railway. It was known that at the present time it was the custom to have refreshment buffets at railway stations. There were such places at many of the stations of the Metropolitan Railway, and he did not know whether it was intended to authorize the sale of liquor at these stations at hours when they could not be sold at public-houses. It appeared to him that this provision would establish a dangerous precedent.

said, that the question was practically answered by the hours at which the Metropolitan District Railway trains ran. There would be inconvenience in not allowing liquor to be supplied at railway stations at the time when travellers desired it; but in London, on the Metropolitan Railway, there was no night travelling after a certain hour—[An hon. MEMBER: Sunday]—and he thought it would be convenient that the clause should remain as it stood.

pointed out that the provision included the hours on Sunday when all the public-houses were closed.

did not think that any person who had travelled much could object to the clause as it stood. People constantly came up to town in the morning for a short time, and there was no place where they could conveniently get refreshments except at these stations. The police at the stations could generally tell very fairly whether a person was a traveller or not.

said, that the question was undoubtedly one of some difficulty. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster would see that his objection applied entirely to the Metropolitan Railway; but how could they distinguish between these railway stations and the larger stations in London? If his hon. Friend would consider the subject, he perhaps might be able to suggest some Amendment on the Report.

said, that he was informed by the managers of the great railway companies that they were quite satisfied with the hours in the Bill proposed for public-houses in London. They thought that the convenience of the public would be quite answered by liberty to keep open for the sale of liquors between the hours of 5 and 6 in the morning and 12 o'clock at night, and on Sunday between the hours specified in the Bill. That applied to the great lines running out of London—such as the London and North-Western and the Great Western.

could not understand how the person selling was to know whether the person whom he served was or was not a railway traveller.

proposed at the end of the clause to add these words—

"An order for an alteration in the closing hours in pursuance of sub-section 2 of this section may he made by the licensing justices at any general annual licensing meeting, or any adjournment thereof, or any special sessions held in pursuance of the ninth year of George the Fourth, chapter sixty-one; Provided, That twenty-one days at the least before any such meeting, adjournment, or special sessions, notice be given in the same manner as is prescribed by the last mentioned Act for the holding of such meeting, adjournment, or special sessions, that the alteration of the closing hours will then be considered."

was apprehensive that under such a provision as this there would be incessant agitation going on to induce the magistrates to change the hours to which licensed houses might be kept open; because it was provided that a change might be directed not only at the general annual licensing meeting, but also at any of the special sessions held during the year. There were eight such sessions in the year, at each of which, as the proposal stood, the question might be raised. He thought that at least the exercise of the power should be confined to the general annual meeting and the adjournments thereof. He also thought that 21 days' notice was hardly sufficient to all those who might be affected.

hoped that the suggestion would be acquiesced in, on the principle that they should reduce to a minimum the annoyance that might arise to the victuallers, and also to the public, from there being frequent applications for a change in the hours of closing.

thought that the closing hours should be fixed for at least a-year.

proposed to amend the Amendment by omitting the words "or any adjournment thereof, or any special sessions."

said, he had no objection to omit the words "or any special sessions."

observed that the effect of this would be that applications for a change of the hours of closing would only be made once a-year; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the notice required was sufficient. He (Mr. Henley) thought that the notice should state what alteration in the hours it was proposed to apply for, and whether it was proposed to shorten or extend the time.

did not think that such notice would be necessary.

thought that the notice provided for would be quite sufficient, because, practically, it would be perfectly well known what change was asked for. The matter had been well considered.

If the notice stated whether the application would be to shorten or lengthen the hours, the parties interested would know with what they had to deal; but if there were no such statement, then every magistrates meeting would be blocked up by the adherents of both parties.

did not think that they were bound to anticipate every possible inconvenience; and he could answer that in Glasgow, where the magistrates had the power to change the hour of closing from 11 to 9, no inconvenience had arisen.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had always laid great stress upon the amount of drunkenness which took place in houses which were kept open at late hours; but if this clause, in its amended shape, was agreed to, he believed it would lead to much hardship as regarded licensed victuallers and evil to the public. It was, in most cases, impossible for the keepers of public-houses to judge exactly whether the customers who asked for refreshments were in such a state that they ought at once to be refused. If the beerhouses were closed an hour or two earlier than the public-houses in country districts, a person who had been drinking at a beerhouse, and who had been turned out at the earlier hour of closing, might go to the nearest open public-house, get a glass of gin upon the beer he had previously drunk, and in a few minutes after find himself in the hands of the police. As a consequence, the license of the publican might be forfeited, though really the person taken up by the police had not got drunk in his house. He thought the publicans ought to be protected against the injustice that would be inflicted on them by the Proviso, which was, in his judgment, so objectionable that he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it.

would remind the hon. Baronet that at present beerhouses, as a rule, closed an hour earlier at least than public-houses; and his objection would apply quite as much to the present system as to that proposed. The cases in which the exceptions would be granted by the licensing authorities would be very rare, for in most cases the hours for closing in districts having a small population would be left by the licensing authorities at the hour which would be the same for beerhouses and for public-houses—namely, 11 o'clock. It was only in very exceptional cases that houses would be allowed to remain open till 12, and it was to meet such exceptional cases that the Proviso had been moved by his hon. Friend.

hoped the Committee would not allow beerhouses to be kept open as late as 12 o'clock. If the magistrates were, in country districts, to order all public-houses to be closed at 11, it would be an evil to have other places open an hour later. The better plan would be to make the hours for closing uniform.

said, the proposal to give power to extend the hours for keeping beerhouses open would, he believed, cause great alarm throughout the whole country. For his own part, he disagreed with striking out the minimum amount of population which had been fixed upon in the Bill, and would have preferred 5,000 to 2,500. If the hours for beerhouses were extended from 10 to 12, the change would be greatly for the worse, and most mischievous in all respects.

said, any change upon the present system of regulating the hours for the closing of public-houses and beershops would lead to a great deal of jealousy, and would do no good.

thought it was clear that the public interest required that all houses where liquor was sold should be closed at the same time. They could arrive at but one conclusion—that if parties who had got three-parts drunk at a house which had to be closed at an earlier hour than another house close by, they would be sure to go to the one that was left open and take what was termed "afresh start," and in such eases it was easy to see that convictions under the Act might be indefinitely, and in some cases unjustly, multiplied; on the other hand, if they closed all houses at the same time, men would then go home and go to bed. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. If the publican, who was responsible for turning intoxicated people out of his house, failed to do so, and was convicted, how was that conviction to be recorded? If the case was heard at petty sessions there would be no record kept, and yet when a publican applied for the renewal of his license, the first thing that would be asked for in support of any opposition would be the record of any conviction for the infraction of the terms of his license. He thought the record ought to be filed at the quarter sessions.

said, that no doubt it was desirable, if practicable, to close public-houses at the same hour as beershops, but they all knew that it was impracticable. Public habits and feeling were against those who wished to do so. The present difference in the hours of closing of the two classes of houses had long existed, was acquiesced in, and he should deprecate any change which would have the effect of extending the hours for keeping open beerhouses to a later time than they now were.

repeated his strong conviction that the clause did not secure the uniformity which was desirable, and felt that it would be his duty to divide the Committee upon it.

said, if the views of the ' hon. Baronet were agreed to by the Committee, there would be in fact a great increase of the evils which the Bill itself aimed at preventing, or at all events diminishing. For instance, in Manchester there were 1,885 beershops, while the number of licensed public-houses was only 460. He would leave to the Committee to consider what would be the effect of giving an additional hour at night to each of these 1,885 beershops.

said, that he had a further Amendment to propose consequent on the omission from the Bill of the 3rd sub-section of the clause. It was in these words—

"Provided further, That premises in respect of which such certificates are in force, if situated beyond the city of London and the liberties thereof, and the parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of the Metropolitan Local Management Act, 1855, and in towns containing less than 2,500 inhabitants, shall not on any day be open after the hour often o'clock at night."

said, that he had been unwilling to occupy the time of the Committee while it was engaged in discussing the details of the clause; but before the clause itself was made part of the Bill, he desired to enter his protest against the section and the principle on which it was founded. He had waited patiently until he saw what form the clause would assume. When he asked the other evening what legislation in this direction was likely to be effected, he received from the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) a mild and gentle rebuke, spoken with a warmth and sincerity arising from that knowledge of things which he thought required such a remedy as the Bill prescribed. He (Mr. Harcourt) ventured to think that his noble Friend had done so because he was acquainted with and represented a different part of the country. With reference to the progress of drunkenness in England, it might be said that drinking in excess was confined to three counties—Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Durham. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought that statement would be questioned, and therefore he had brought with him some Papers which would probably astonish the Representatives from those parts of the country. A Return had been moved for showing the number of convictions for drunkenness in 1871 in the counties and boroughs of England. He had had that Return analyzed and the towns placed in their order of demerit, and the list commenced with a town where the convictions were 1 in 11,000, and ended with Liverpool, where the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 26. Among the last few towns in that list were Hartlepool, South Shields, Manchester, Warrington, and Liverpool; and those were towns in all of which the convictions had amounted to 1 in 50 of the population and under. The history of this question practically resulted in this—that the cause of drunkenness was chiefly high wages. It was all very well for those parts of the country where drunkenness was so rife to clamour for special legislation; but those in other portions of the country where the same evil did not exist had a fair right to object to this Procrustean rule of legislation, and he, for one, desired to protest against legislation being borrowed from Liverpool and being brought and applied to Oxford—the city which he had the honour to represent—and where nobody was, or had for several weeks past been, in gaol. Drunkenness and crime were not increasing throughout the country, whatever might be the state of things in one or two particular quarters, and it was therefore unjust to inflict upon the country legislation which they felt to be vexatious, and knew to be unnecessary. Then, again, they were about to impose upon the licensing justices one of the most invidious duties it was possible for any man to have to perform, and hereafter the position of an Irish Judge would be almost as desirable as that of a licensing magistrate. See what the proposed system would lead to. The town magistrates in a district might come to one decision, and the county magistrates to another, as to the proper hours of opening or closing public-houses. Now where this conflict of opinion took place, what was to be done? And would not the issue inevitably be turmoil, contention, and dissension? He knew that the Committee was very anxious to get rid of the question; but he would venture to predict that much more would be heard upon the subject, and that this Bill would breed a row in almost every parish and town in England. [" No, no!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) represented one of the worst managed towns in England, and might therefore be excused for disagreeing from him. But, feeling as he did that in order to accomplish a very doubtful good they were about to do a great deal of certain mischief, he could not allow this clause to pass without entering his protest against it.

denied that Lancashire and Yorkshire were particularly interested in the passing of the Bill. There were the great towns of Sheffield and Leeds, which, considering the population, were excessively regular and sober; and, moreover, they could not rely upon statistics as to drunkenness, and, therefore, they could not accept the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The number of these convictions depended upon the manner in which the police regulations were carried out. In some towns when a man was found drunk he was immediately removed to the police-station; while in other towns he had heard it remarked that the safest way to reach home was to get drunk and to be taken there by a constable.

said, that in the town he represented (Ashton-under-Lyne) the public-houses were visited by the police every 20 minutes, and the consequence was that the amount of drunkenness was only 2 per cent.

said, he had an Amendment to propose. The clause gave power to grant special licenses in the case of markets; but he proposed to extend it further. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department intimated his intention of including theatres, and his (Mr. Harcourt's) proposition was to extend it to clubs—Freemasons' places of meeting, and other assemblies of that description—and give them the same privilege as that to be enjoyed in the neighbourhood of theatres. A strong feeling prevailed on the subject in many parts of the country. These clubs were often almost the whole social life of a place, and the magistrates ought certainly to be allowed the option of deciding if they were fitting objects of a little indulgence. He was aware it had been said that this object might be attained by means of an occasional license; but he said it could not. Suppose the Freemasons and the Odd Fellows were to meet every week in a place, were they to apply for a license for each occasion? Would it not be simpler and better to enact that one license should suffice in all such cases? He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment, in page 11, line 18, after "public market," to insert the words, "or the meetings of any clubs or other societies associated for any lawful purpose."

said, he considered the societies referred to of such national importance that if he thought the proposed boon would not be really injurious he would gladly concede it. But since he received a deputation of working men in reference to it some time ago, he had received another deputation of working men from Leeds, and other large towns, who stated that they did not at all concur in the views expressed by the members of the previous deputation, and that, in their opinion, it would be a great advantage if the opportunities of drinking were taken away from these meetings. The memorial presented to him on that occasion was sent up by, and signed on behalf of, the District Trades Council of Leeds. It stated that the transaction of the necessary business of trade and friendly societies was almost always finished by 11 o'clock, if not by 10; that by working men meeting so often in public-houses they were made to contract habits of intemperance; that they were often prevented by it from returning to work at the proper time in the morning, thereby inflicting serious injury on their employers, and also on themselves; that the shortening of the hours of labour in most trades afforded greater facilities for getting through the business earlier than formerly; that places, other than public-houses, were fast becoming available for the purposes of these meetings; and that where such places were so used, the absence of intoxicating drinks was found to be attended with beneficial results. Now, when it was found possible to conduct business of this kind without resorting to public-houses, he thought there was no very great case for the exemption which was demanded.

said, he felt it his duty to state that he knew the men from whom the memorial referred to by the Home Secretary proceeded. Many of them were men of high character, and he could answer for the truth of what they alleged. It was true that the clubs generally—and they were nearly numberless—closed at 10 o'clock, or soon after. With regard to the exemption in favour of persons attending theatres, he was strongly opposed to giving such a privilege to persons attending the perform- ances at any of the low theatres in the large towns.

protested against the question being decided by the experience of Leeds, and said he should take the sense of the Committee upon the question. It might be the habit at Leeds to finish business at 10 o'clock; but in his place they did not begin business till past 10 o'clock. Were they by Act of Parliament to force habits upon people to which they were unaccustomed, and which they had no desire to acquire? The hon. Member for Leeds said they must teach those people what was for their good; they must teach them to go to bed early, and, in fact, they must make all England behave as Leeds did. England might then be a paradise, perhaps; but for the present England did not desire it. He had heard that an indictment could not be drawn against a whole nation, and no more could they make a whole nation go to bed early. If they could, why had not the House of Commons been long ago the first to set the example by enacting a Bill providing that the House should go to bed at 10 o'clock? Had such a Bill been brought in he should have voted with its promoters; but to force all people to go to bed at 10 o'clock because some thought it wise to do so was, in his opinion, very unfair. The fact was, that a great part of the social life of the country was spent in taverns, and they had no right whatever to put an end to it. People met there to chat, refresh, and amuse themselves, and also to discuss the political questions of the day; and he believed that as much of the history of England had been brought about in public-houses as in the House of Commons.

observed that the effect of agreeing to the Amendment would be to induce every debating society to meet at public-houses, and they would stop up till all hours.

said, he was strongly opposed to the Amendment, than which, he thought, a greater social mischief could not be inflicted. Every hon. Member who witnessed the turn-out of per- sons frequenting theatres must admit that a clause of this kind would have a demoralizing effect. His intention was to divide the Committee upon it.

, on the contrary, thought the local authority should have full power allowed it of affording any reasonable facilities of this kind. He spoke, of course, for London, and did not pretend to know anything about Leeds. With respect to London, however, it was absolutely necessary that public-houses should be allowed to keep open after 12 o'clock. He was quite familiar with the views of the hon. Member for Leeds on these questions. He once had to sit with him on the same Committee for six weeks, and during that time the hon. Member opposed every proposition that was likely to make people comfortable. He never in his life heard him utter a word that would tend to make our passage through this life agreeable. His hon. Friend was strong on the subject of closing public-houses on Sundays; yet he knew that Sunday newspapers were made up on Saturday night, and Monday newspapers on Sunday night, and probably the hon. Member did not mind reading his Monday's paper. Yet in these matters there was always one class that was selected for attack. People like the hon. Gentleman were so much wrapped up in themselves that they thought of nobody else. Why should they? So far as London was concerned, it would be extremely inconvenient if the dreadful people whom he saw wandering through the streets on their return from the theatres should be starved by Act of Parliament—sent to bed with nothing to eat or to drink. In London these places and means for obtaining refreshment had been in existence from time immemorial, and men like Johnson, and many others of the highest eminence in literature, whose names would live when that of the hon. Member for Leeds was forgotten, had passed large portions of their lives there, among those whom their learning and their conversation attracted around them. The country was most certainly opposed to all legislation of the kind, and he hoped the Committee would not allow Leeds to legislate for it—upon this question, at any rate.

said, he thought it objectionable to allow exemptions to be made in favour of persons attending any particular class of amusement or entertainment; but if those who had been taking part in the performances themselves were meant, he could understand it.

observed that when the Early Closing Act of 1864 was introduced it was held that so great a change should not be carried into effect without its being alleviated by certain conditions. Consequently, the local authorities were empowered to grant certain exemptions. The present Bill also would effect great changes. He had been informed that it was the general desire of the publicans of the metropolis that their houses should be closed at 12 o'clock. ["No, no!"] That statement had been made to him by metropolitan Members and other gentlemen; but it had also been represented to him that great inconvenience would result to those who frequented theatres, if they should not have the means of obtaining refreshment when they closed. He wished that the theatres closed earlier than they did. The people would enjoy themselves much better if the example of other great capitals was followed, and the performances were brought to a close at about half-past 10 o'clock. The national habits, however, could not be suddenly changed by legislative enactment; and he thought that some concession might be made in the present instance. That concession, however, would only be made by the local authorities when they were satisfied that the social habits of the people required it.

hailed with great satisfaction the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would maintain the Amendment. On Saturday last, when some discussion arose as to the closing of public-houses in the metropolis, he assured the Committee that a clause providing exemptions in certain places should be brought forward; and it was extremely satisfactory to know that he would keep his promise, and would not defer to the expression of individual opinion. He (Sir Henry Hoare) protested in the name of the constituency he represented at the change of the hours for closing from 1 to 12 o'clock. It had always been said, both out-of-doors and in-doors, that it was the interest of the licensed victuallers to keep their houses open until 1 o'clock; but he asserted that it was the interest of the public that they should be kept open until that hour. He ventured to prophesy that the closing of these houses at 12 o'clock would result in great disturbance. ["Oh, oh!"] That was his opinion, and he had a right to express it, notwithstanding the murmurs of hon. Gentlemen from Yorkshire, Cumberland, and Lancashire. It was very possible that the histrionic performances at Leeds might be of a very low and inferior order, and that consequently it was wise to discourage the population from attending them. He was sure that the metropolis would protest against the closing of public-houses at 12 o'clock.

thought the introduction of the word "theatre" was very inconsistent, and an afterthought of the framers of the Bill. It was making exceptions in favour of the chief causes of late closing. He understood that the object of the Bill was to put places of refreshment and, incidentally, of amusement under better regulations, and held that it would be unwise to introduce the proposed exemptions with reference to them.

said, that if there was any place in which public-houses ought not to be open at unreasonable hours it was the vicinity of theatres. The clause, in fact, with this addition, provided that public-houses should be open just at the time when they should be shut.

reminded the Committee that this clause was the result of a compromise. The hour of closing was fixed at 12 o'clock on the express understanding that large discretion would be allowed in such cases as those under discussion.

said, the right hon. Gentleman having carried that Amendment could not well stop there but should extend the indulgence to every place of amusement. It would be a monstrously hard thing if people returning from a theatre were to be supplied with refreshment, whilst those who were returning from a concert or other place of amusement of a perfectly legitimate character—from Exeter Hall, for instance, in which he thought that per- haps his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds might he interested—were precluded from it. He would, therefore, move to add to the Amendment just carried the words, "or other places of amusement"—he meant "lawful" amusement.

observed that the House of Commons was neither a theatre nor a place of amusement, and therefore, even with this Amendment, hon. Members might not be able to get their refreshments at the stall in the lobby.

complained that an indulgence was granted to theatres which was denied to benefit societies and workmen's clubs.

thought so too, and hoped his hon. and learned Friend would renew his Motion on the Report. If he did so, he would certainly support him. While he was in favour of retaining the pains and penalties, he had no confidence in the hour regulations. He would in all such matters trust to the good sense of the people themselves, and give them that amount of liberty which they required.

then proposed as an Amendment in page 12, line 13, to alter the metropolitan area by leaving out the words "Metropolitan Police District," in order to insert—"parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of the Metropolis Local Management Act."

said, the other was the area mentioned in the Early Closing Act, and as it worked well he did not see any reason for making a change.

explained that the Court of Petty Sessions mentioned in the Act was that Court which was called at regular times, and which all the justices might attend, as distinguished from any casual meeting of justices in a magisterial capacity.

said, that before it was put to the Committee he wished again to call the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that in several parts of the country the publicans had refreshment-houses apart from the public-houses, by which they were enabled to evade the provisions of the law in respect to the closing of the former. The guests in any one of those refreshment-houses had only to apply to the attendants for beer or spirits, and they, on receiving the money for those liquors, immediately fetched them from their master's public-house. The guests were thereby enabled to continue consuming those intoxicating drinks for hours after the closing of the public-house.

said, the subject was one well worthy consideration. Those refreshment-rooms, however, which had a wine license had, at present, to close at the same time with the beerhouses. Those houses which merely supplied tea and coffee might be open as long as the public-houses were open, and were subject to the same regulations, and all would be under the same rule after the passing of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman then moved to add to the clause the following words:—

"And if any person keeping any such refreshment house as is mentioned in this section, sells or exposes for sale in such a refreshment house, or keeps or opens or keeps open any such refreshment house for the sale of intoxicating liquors during the time that such house is directed to be closed by this section, or during such time as aforesaid allows any intoxicating liquor to be consumed on such premises, he shall for the first offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds.

"Any conviction for an offence against this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted."

thought that the same rule should be applied to the keepers of refreshment-houses as to the licensed victuallers, and that the recording of the conviction should be left to the discretion of the magistrate. He would therefore move as an Amendment on the Amendment the addition of the words—"unless the convicting magistrates or justices shall otherwise direct."

said, that the Amendment-of the hon. and learned Gentleman, so far from, producing uniformity, would establish an entirely new principle with regard to refreshment-houses. If his hon. and learned Friend would look to the earlier part of the Bill, he would find that wherever a licensed person sold liquor which he was not authorized to sell, or liquor to be consumed on the premises which he was only allowed to sell for consumption off the premises, these offences were to be recorded. It was proposed, on the same principle, that the convictions of refreshment-house keepers should also he recorded.

said, if it was the law already, why was it necessary to introduce the words in addition to what he was moving?

said, his hon. and learned Friend had misunderstood him. He said that in the former clauses of the Bill it was provided that convictions should be recorded. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would produce diversity and not uniformity.

said, the offence of the refreshment-house keeper might be a trifling one, and a discretion ought to be left to the magistrates.

said, that Clauses 4 and 5 applied to offences which were practically wilful offences. This clause, however, applied to closing hours, and he thought the same reasons which led them to give the magistrates a discretionary power with regard to offences in the matter of closing and opening public-houses applied to refreshment-houses.

moved, as an Amendment, the omission of all the clause down to "conviction," in line 43, and the insertion of the following:—(Convictions against holders of license to be recorded on his license.—Forfeiture of license.—Disqualification of holder of license.)

"(1.) Every conviction which is directed to be recorded on the license under the provisions of this Act shall be endorsed by the clerk of the court before which such conviction shall take place upon every license attached to the premises at which the offence was committed of which such person is the holder, and when any such license shall thereafter be renewed or transferred, the record of such conviction shall appear upon such renewed or transferred license.

"(2.) Whenever the amount of penalties imposed by the convictions under the provisions of this Act so endorsed upon any license shall amount within a period of three years to the sum of thirty pounds, such license shall thereupon become ipso facto void.

"(3.) Whenever the penalties imposed upon any holder of a license under this Act shall amount to the sum of fifteen pounds in a period of three years, such person shall be thereupon disqualified for a period of three years from the date of such last conviction from being the holder of any license under this Act."

He said that they had now come to the clause which, after the clause relating to closing hours, was the most important part of the Bill. It related to the manner in which they proposed to record on the licenses the convictions of those who were convicted for offences under this Act. They had had one or two schemes for this object before them. They had in their recollection the scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman last year, which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) ventured to think was a far better way of recording convictions than that proposed in the Bill. The object of his Amendment was, to make in some way the record of the convictions proportionate to the offences which were recorded. Under the cumulative penalty which he now proposed, and which was suggested last year, the smaller offences were valued against the license in proportion to the character of the offence. That, he thought, was more equal and more just than to draw a hard-and-fast line and say that three convictions which the justices might think fit to record should forfeit the license. The cumulative penalty provided that a certain number of offences, according to their merits, should forfeit the license, and in that way two or three heavy penalties would effect that result. The Bill, in its present form, required that whatever the value of the convictions, when a certain number had been recorded the license should be forfeited. That provision had been softened by the admission of words giving a permissive power to record; but still he thought the mode of record proposed in the Government Bill of last year far more satisfactory. The value of the cumulative penalty was, that small offences would have a proportionately small bearing against the value of the license; whereas under the clause as it stood they might in one district get a bench of magistrates who felt strongly on this question, and who were prepared to record the smallest possible convictions. In another district they might have magistrates who took a different view, and thus the value of the record would be wholly different. He thought this record of convictions would work much better under the cumulative system, and he would be almost content to rely on the arguments advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of his proposal last year. He hoped the Committee would fairly consider this most important clause.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would retain his own clause, especially as they had given the magistrates the discretion of recording the offences or not. The objections of the hon. Baronet were met by the provision; the magistrates were not directed to record the conviction unless they saw fit. He did not think that magistrates would be influenced in the discharge of their duties by prejudice, and it was quite certain that small offences would not be recorded. When they had two serious offences, it was only fair that on the commission of a third the license should be forfeited.

said, that the hon. Baronet had referred in a complimentary strain to the proposal in the Bill of last year; but he must remind him that 12 months had passed since that time, and that they had gained considerable experience. They were sensible now that they must not make too large a demand upon public virtue. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet was no doubt more stringent than the clause in the Government Bill, but he did not think it would be operative if carried; and as the clause in the Government Bill would have all the practical effect that the hon. Baronet aimed at, though in a less stringent manner, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 43, after the word "conviction," to insert—

"in cases where the Court decides not to disqualify the premises, the Court shall grant a provisional license to the nominee of the landlord or person beneficially interested in the premises until the next Brewster Sessions."

If some such Amendment were not made, the business of a public-house could not be carried on where the publican was disqualified from holding a license, but where the house itself was not disqualified.

said, the proposal was entirely new. It asked that a house, the license of which had been forfeited, should be put in a better position than at present. To ask that on behalf of an owner who, if he had strictly discharged the duties of an owner, might have prevented the misconduct which had forfeited the license, was to ask for an amount of indulgence which he thought the Committee would not grant. Without any such provision, it would be open to the magistrates, at the licensing Sessions, to grant a new license in the usual manner to a new tenant.

said, that that could not be done under the existing law, except on the annual licensing day. A house, therefore, might be virtually disqualified for nine or ten months, even though it had been specially exempted from disqualification. Unless it were allowed to be carried on under a temporary license, the business belonging to it would go elsewhere, and the value of the goodwill would be seriously depreciated.

said, it was not necessary to put a house in a more favourable position than it occupied under the existing law.

regarded the Amendment as perfectly monstrous as it would put the licensing power into the hands of the landlord of the house, who was an interested party.

thought that there should be some provision in the Bill to prevent the disqualification of such houses. Suppose a public-house in the close neighbourhood of a railway station, and that travellers arriving at the station required refreshments and could not obtain them, the house where they expected to get them being shut up. He (Mr. Henley) was of opinion that the licensing authority should be at liberty to put some properly qualified person in to keep and conduct the house for the public accommodation, such per- son not being a nominee of the disqualified publican, for it would be a great public inconvenience if a house were closed for eight or nine months.

ventured to think that they would perpetrate an absurdity if they did not retain stringency in the clause.

suggested that the Amendment might be amended by the substitution of the word "may" for "shall," and thus meet the objection. If this Bill passed, disqualification might happen at all times of the year, and be productive of great injustice.

did not concur in the opinion of his hon. Friend relating to disqualification.

objected to the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman on this question. Under this Bill a public-house would be prevented from carrying on business for a number of years.

said, he would amend his Amendment by substituting the word "may" for "shall," as suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). The Amendment would in that case run thus—"In case the Court decides not to disqualify the premises, the Court 'may' in its discretion grant a license."

was of opinion that the owner of the premises, who really had the control of his tenant, should not be free from responsibility if the house continued to be badly conducted.

adhered to the clause as it stood. He saw no hardship whatever in depriving a house of its license if there were three convictions recorded within the space of five years. It was most important in the public interest that such houses should be closed, and placed on the same footing as unlicensed houses.

was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to adhere to the original proposition of the Bill.

moved as an Amendment in page 13, line 9, to leave out the word "five" and insert "three." Licenses were granted annually, and penalties entailing forfeiture of licenses should not be held over for so long a period as five years.

could not consent to the alteration. He thought five years was not too long a period for a magistrate to consider in judging of the character of a publican.

moved in page 13, line 10, the omission of the words "to an increased penalty," with the view of substituting "or the premises occupied by him to such forfeiture or disqualification as aforesaid." He thought where five years had elapsed since a conviction for any offence under this Act had taken place, the fact of such conviction should not in any degree tend, as regarded premises or disqualification, to the injury of the licensed person.

said, the Amendment was altogether unnecessary. Disqualification could only take place where three offences had taken place within a given time—namely, five years.

proposed, in page 13, line 26, to leave out "a constable," and insert "an officer of Excise." He thought it would be better to have an officer of Excise to examine any public-house or hotel, if he had reasonable ground to suppose that liquors were kept in them for an unlawful purpose, than any constable or member of the police force.

said, the power of visiting hotels and public-houses by constables had been in existence for the last 30 years, and was inserted in various Acts of Parliament. Since that period no complaint had ever been made of the power being abused, and he was of opinion it would be better to leave it as it now stood than transfer it to officers of Excise.

proposed as an Amendment in page 13, fine 26, after "all," to insert "reasonable."

said, the Amendment was inconsistent, for the police might construe it to mean whenever they had what they might call a reason.

moved in page 13, line 27, after "every," to insert "public," so as to protect the family of the licensed victualler from unnecessary annoyance.

said, the Amendment would lead to a room in which improper proceedings were going on being marked "private," as, indeed, was now sometimes done with regard to gambling.

also objected to the Amendment upon the ground that if it were carried all liquor liable to seizure would be sure to be stowed in the private part of the house, and there would be no security against an infringement of the law.

moved in page 13, line 36, to omit "week," and insert "month." The hon. Baronet explained that the object of the Amendment was to afford officers in charge of warrants a better opportunity of visiting the premises of persons alleged to have committed offences against the Act.

then moved to insert; in page 14, line 15, at the end of the clause, "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member said, he should not think of applying that condition to the first part of the clause, but he thought it essential that it should be introduced at the end, in order that tavern-keepers might receive a fair amount of protection, particularly in cases where they chanced not to be so active as the police constables might think they ought to be. As the Bill stood, his failure to bring a candle, or a lucifer, or to omit doing anything which the constable might deem to be necessary for the furtherance of his object, would be a serious offence, and constitute a proper ground of conviction, and the conviction was to be endorsed upon his license. When the Committee remembered that only three offences were necessary in order to deprive a publican of his business and means of livelihood, it would not deem any security too great against his being ruined for any trivial cause.

reminded the hon. and learned Member for Southwark that he had supported him in most of his previous efforts on behalf of the publican as regarded endorsing the license, because he thought that it was now a question of one of those wilful things that should be visited with the full penalty of the law. The publican in such a case could not say that the act complained of had been done without his knowledge or consent.

thought that if the magistrate were left to himself he would be certain to exercise a proper discretion in this matter. In many cases, however, the magistrate would be compelled to endorse the license, and that would have a cruel effect on the holder of it.

thought the distinction drawn by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex a perfectly just one, and it was not to the interests of the publican, or of anyone else, that conduct such as that against which the clause was directed should have a shield thrown over it. He was content to go to a division, if necessary, upon the clause as it stood.

remarked that though the magistrate was not to have a discretionary power, the constable would be allowed a considerable one.

said, that the discretion for the magistrate would be as to whether he should convict or not convict. He had supported the hon. and learned Member for Southwark in his series of Amendments as to hours and the definition of "quarrelsome," as to which doubts might arise, of which the publican should have the benefit. He was aware that the acts complained of had been done; but this was a matter of complaint as to which ignorance could not be pleaded.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would sustain his clause. He could not see that the constable would have so much power under the clause. All he could do would be to state facts, while it would be for the magistrates to interpret them.

remarked that it was very hard that the holder of a license should be punished by the endorsement of it for an offence which was only trivial.

contended that the magistrates ought to have a discretion as to endorsing the licenses with convictions of minor offences. The furnishing of a constable with an insufficient light might be a trivial and the only offence the publican had committed; and in such a case a magistrate might very well come to the conclusion that, although he would inflict a penalty, yet at the same time he would not endorse the license.

moved as an Amendment, in page 15, line 12, after "district," to insert—

"And there shall be paid to the clerk in respect of such registration the sum or fee of two shillings and six pence for every license granted or renewed."

He observed that some such provision was necessary, as the issue and renewal of licenses would entail heavy burdens on the justices' clerks.

agreed that some remuneration was due to the clerks, and would suggest that the fee should be 1s.

moved the omission of the words, in page 15, line 14, "in counties." He asked permission to state why he preferred his Amendment to the proposition of the Government. He thought it was exceedingly desirable to keep as much as possible to the old-established authorities. The Bill would create a new authority for the purpose of confirming the licenses which had been granted, and he wished to keep up the present appellate authority of the Quarter Sessions. The proposal of the Government was, that in the larger boroughs a committee of three justices would issue licenses, and a larger body of the same justices would confirm them; and in the second class of boroughs the confirming authority would consist of three justices of the county joined with three justices of the borough. He proposed that the Court of Quarter Sessions should decide appeals, but that the justices voting in respect to them should not exceed 10 in number, and should have been appointed for that purpose. Also in boroughs the appeals should be decided at the Quarter Sessions by justices appointed to discharge that duty. At present the clerk of the peace disposed of all questions connected with the granting of licenses, and he saw no reason why that officer should receive extra payment for performing that duty. All these things might be avoided by making the one Court uniform for the entire county.

said, he had an Amendment which was to leave out the first three lines of the clause, which provided for the appointment of a standing committee to confirm the grant of new licenses, but it appeared it was to have nothing to do with renewals. Now, he was at a loss to see what means this standing committee could have of judging whether the magistrates who granted the license in the first instance were right or wrong in their decision. He assumed the standing committee was to be a substitute for the Court of Quarter Sessions; but if there was still an appeal to that tribunal—which he would wish to get rid of—then he could not see what could be the possible use of the committee. He would therefore like to get rid of this appellate Court altogether.

, while admitting that in the rural districts three or four magistrates generally performed all the work with unanimity and satisfaction, remarked that in some cases the wisest magistrates were overruled in the issue of licenses by their colleagues. The object of the plan proposed by the Government, therefore, was, by constituting a committee of the leading magistrates in the county to review the decision of the licensing magistrates, to give the people confidence that no licenses would be improperly granted. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, he could not but look upon it with favour, as it was almost identical with one of his own contrivance; but it was open to this objection—that it would bring together too large a number of magistrates, so that the tribunal would become an unwieldly one. On the whole, he considered the plan of the Government the most satisfactory one.

said, he concurred in the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Those who had experience of the Courts of Quarter Session knew that you could always put your finger on a few magistrates who did the whole work of the county.

said, he forgot to mention, with respect to renewals, that he thought the best course was to leave them where they were, it being desirable in the case of vested interests to have the matter argued by barristers.

then moved the insertion, in page 15, line 14, after "Counties," of the words "and Boroughs," the effect of which would be to place the review of all licenses, whether granted in counties or in boroughs, in the hands of one and the same committee.

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was not required, for the experiment of having a committee had been already tried with success in some of the larger boroughs. In these cases a small number of the best and most active magistrates were chosen, and they dealt with the question of granting and renewing licenses; and although the general body of the magistrates had power to reverse their de- cisions, such a power was rarely exercised.

moved as an Amendment, in page 15, line 14, to leave out from "a grant of," to "new licenses," in line 17, page 17, and insert—

"and boroughs the licensing authority shall be composed of not less than three or more than six justices, as may be determined by a Secretary of State, such justices to be appointed by the justices having jurisdiction therein from among themselves, with whom shall be associated for all purposes of a licensing authority a like number of ratepayers, who shall be elected for that purpose by the ratepayers in each borough or petty sessional division in counties, in like manner and under the same regulations as guardians for the relief of the poor are elected; the licensing authority to appoint one of their body to act as chairman, who upon all occasions shall have a second or casting vote; the quorum of such licensing authority shall be three members; the election to take place in the month of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and afterwards in the same month in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and every third year afterwards, the retiring members, whether justices or elected ratepayers, to be eligible to be re-elected. If from any cause any member may not have been appointed or elected to succeed the retiring members, such members may continue to act until their successors are appointed or elected. Any vacancies arising from death, resignation, or other causes may be from time to time filled up in manner similar to that in which the member was elected whose place has to be supplied. The clerk of the petty sessional division or of the borough justices, as the case may be, shall perform all such duties in relation to the licensing authority as he is required by law to perform in relation to the justices, or as nearly thereto as circumstances, require."

The hon. Baronet said, that the Amendment which he had proposed was the backbone of the Bill which he had placed upon the Table of the House, and which he had long wished to have an opportunity of discussing. The real question was whether, in this important matter of licensing, they could trust the people themselves. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated on Saturday last that there was a strong opinion pointing in the direction of the Amendment. It was true that his right hon. Friend was speaking of hours; but what applied to hours was equally applicable to the issue of licenses. He said that there was no one more interested than the inhabitants of a place in the hours of closing, and that there would be a great advantage in leaving that question to be decided by those who were elected by and were conversant with the wants of the public; and if that principle were applicable to hours it was still more applicable to the granting of licenses. The power which he proposed to give the people was a very small one; and he could not conceive why the elected representatives of the people should not be associated with the justices in this matter. His right hon. Friend had admitted that the number of magistrates who attended the licensing courts was small, and that among them were very often to be found magistrates influenced by carelessness, indifference, and jobbery; and when a Secretary of State said that, it appeared to him (Sir Robert Anstruther) that it was a strong argument in favour of his proposition. If he found any support he should certainly take the sense of the Committee upon it.

said, that his hon. Friend had said with great truth that this was the backbone of the Bill which he (Sir Robert Anstruther) had introduced into the House; and he would therefore admit that it was hardly proper to discuss in Committee on this Bill another Bill which was inconsistent with its essential principle. His hon. Friend proposed that the body which was to exercise the licensing authority should be composed one-half of persons elected by the ratepayers. He (Mr. Bruce) did not say that in all cases it would be bad, but he thought that on the whole it would be a dangerous principle to admit. In the borough with which he was connected, out of 60 public-houses, no less than 50 were in the possession of one brewer. Let them conceive the influence which would be exerted for the purpose of having on the licensing authority members who were in the interest of that brewer. This proposal would lead to constant struggles between those who were in favour of reducing the public-houses and those who were not, and he therefore could not accept it.

said, he felt that the proposal of his hon. Friend was in conformity with the traditions of local government in this country. There was a strong feeling in many parts of the country in its favour, and unless some control was given to the inhabitants of the various districts they would have year after year the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle brought forward. If they did not concede to the inhabitants some control over this matter of licensing, they would be obliged to resort to that measure. He felt convinced that the country would be disappointed if they passed this Bill without giving some control to the ratepayers, and he regretted that the Government had not introduced some clauses for that purpose, and also for continuing the suspensory power of last Session.

said, they had not had much assistance from the front Opposition bench in the conduct of this Bill. He saw that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) had taken the position of Leader of the Opposition, and he should be glad to hear his opinion on the subject.

said, that the proposal of the hon. Baronet had received a considerable amount of support out-of-doors, and that was more than could be said for the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. Then, again, it was said there were difficulties in the scheme of his hon. Friend the Member for Fifeshire. Of course there were. There were difficulties in most schemes. The whole thing itself was a difficulty and an anomaly, and the trade was in an anomalous position altogether. All he could say was, that there was a growing opinion in favour of giving a majority of the ratepayers a control over the licensing system, and he should certainly support the modification of it contained in the proposal of his hon. Friend, if he went to a division.

said, the Amendment recognized the representative principle introduced by the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) in his Permissive Liquor Bill—a principle which, if enacted, would bring influences to bear on the action and decisions of the licensing board. The opponents of that scheme had been all along trying to eliminate and get rid of that principle, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would resist the Amendment.

said, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet would be to give a perfect control over the licensing system to the hands of those whom it was not desirable to entrust it. They should leave the matter in the hands of the magistrates. It would not do to have one-half of the licensing board appointed by the ratepayers and the other half consisting of magistrates. They had had a similar attempt at such a composition in the proposed county boards of some time ago; but the feeling of the House was so much in favour of leaving the power in the hands of the magistrates that the scheme was defeated. If the hon. Baronet went to a division, he should certainly divide against him, and vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.

said, that to meet the wishes of the Committee, which he thought had lately been exhibiting a decided predilection for water, he had diluted his proposal, and instead of the proposal to have the licensing boards composed wholly of members elected by the ratepayers, he had suggested that those boards should be composed partly of justices and partly of ratepayers. After the support he had received from hon. Members behind him, he should certainly divide the Committee.

said, if the Amendment were carried, it would result not in a mere introduction of "water," but in an infusion of "beer" into the subject.

moved in page 16, line 3, after "assembled," to insert—

"And shall, in respect of the discharge of such duties, be entitled to such remuneration as the licensing committee or committees shall fix and determine."

said, that in his county they paid their clerk of the peace by salary, and whether an addition should be made in consequence of these new duties was a question which required consideration.

said, the same remark applied to his county, and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

said, it was with very great pleasure that he found so many friends of the principle, which he had advocated for years, present, and voting so steadily in the face of adverse majorities. They might for the time-being be beaten, but he had a firm conviction that the time was not distant when the Legislature would assent to their views. Be that as it might, those who with him thought that the decision ought not to be left in the hands of a selected and scarcely responsible body were bound to assert their principles on all fitting occasions. This was one of them, and he therefore proposed to add at the end of the clause under consideration—

"Provided that in any parish the ratepayers may by a vote taken according to the regulations in or made under the third Schedule of this Act, prevent the issue of any certificate or licenses by the licensing authority or revenue department for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the parish in which such vote is taken."

The Amendment explained itself, and he need only say that he had adopted as nearly as possible the words used by the Home Secretary himself in his Bill of last year, and he must add that he was always glad to follow the right hon. Gentleman whenever he possibly could do so. At all events, his Amendment only carried out the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman last year, for the proposed Proviso would only give a veto power to the ratepayers after a certain number of licenses had been granted. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) had asked why they should have legislation of this kind, and said it was not needed for Oxford. In reply, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) might say that there were many smaller places than Oxford where the inhabitants wanted less beggary and vice and fewer public-houses; and it was rather hard that they should not have a voice and a veto upon a question which affected them so nearly, and to decide as to the number of these houses they would permit to be opened. It had lately been said by an eminent authority that public-houses degraded and ruined those who used them. That statement was made not by any rabid advocate of the permissive or prohibitory principle, but by the leading journal of this country—a journal which, though it might be seldom far in advance, never lagged very far behind public opinion. More than that, his right hon. Friend had himself said on former occasions that the ratepayers ought to have a control in this matter, and the larger that control the better. Moreover, the numerous public meetings held in every part of the country, and the rapturous applause which greeted the speakers who advocated these principles, showed that opinion was ripening upon this question, and unless he heard some better and stronger reasons than any he had heard yet against the adoption of his addition to the clause, he should certainly take the sense of the House upon it. For his own part, he did not believe in what was called personal government, or agree in handing over such questions to the magistrates and allowing them to deal with them as they pleased. One thing he did know—the division upon the Motion would be scanned throughout the whole country more closely than any which had taken place on this Bill, and though he might be defeated, that would only be an incentive to renewed efforts to win for the people at large self government in a matter which more deeply interested them than almost any other that could be named.

said, there were two ways of voting in that House—one was to be absent, and the other to be present. He was glad to see his hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had presided over a conference at which the principle advocated by the hon. Baronet was upheld, was in his place. He presumed that as those who usually occupied seats on that bench were absent, they were on the permissive side of the question. Notwithstanding the absence of those hon. Gentlemen, he believed the hon. Baronet opposite would be beaten on this question again.

objected that the Amendment introduced a totally new principle in dealing with established and vested interests, and ought not to be adopted as it were by a side-wind, but deliberately considered in relation to all its possible consequences. He therefore moved as an Amendment to that of the hon. Baronet to add the word "new," after the words "after the issue of any."

hoped that neither the hon. Member for Carlisle, by his Amendment, nor the hon. Member for Kendal, by his Amendment of that Amendment, was about to raise any discussion on the Permissive Bill, the principle of which had already engaged their attention for a sufficiently long time. By his Amendment the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had introduced all the evils connected with the action of the ratepayers, and he had made it still more objectionable to give them the power and control he contemplated, by connecting their power with the suggestion of a wholesale confiscation of licenses. This year Government had brought forward a measure which embodied everything they thought the time was ripe for, and it certainly was not ripe for the Permissive Bill. The hon. Baronet was on that subject in advance of the age. He trusted that he would not continue to occupy the time of the Committee by further contesting the principle, but that he would allow the consideration of the Bill they were engaged upon to proceed.

said, he hoped to have an opportunity of voting against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; at the same time he sympathized with him in one of the sentiments to which he had given utterance—namely, his objection to the machinery of the Bill being entrusted to one body—the licensing justices—for the tendency evinced towards that system of legislation was, he thought, to be deprecated. But the hon. Baronet proposed to substitute ratepayers for magistrates, and that in his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) opinion, would be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. One was bad enough, the other worse.

expressed surprise that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had mixed up the Amendment and the amended Amendment. The latter dealt only with the issue of fresh licenses, was in no degree connected with the confiscation of existing interests, and was similar in principle to one of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced last Session—the best part, indeed, he thought of last year's Bill. He hoped the hon. Member for Kendal would divide, in order that he might have the opportunity of giving him his support.

thought that if the ratepayers were to have a veto given them over the issue of licenses they also should have the power to compel their issue. Any limitation of the prohibition could hardly be reconciled with strictly equitable dealing.

considered that had it not been for the action of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, the Home Secretary would not have got so far as he had done on the question. He further believed if the right hon. Gentleman's own feelings in the matter were free, they would have something like popular control in this measure. The Amendment might be like the Permissive Bill; but the question the Committee had to decide was, whether they would admit popular influence and popular feeling into the settlement of this important issue. He believed it must be settled in that way, and he should vote for the Amendment, because he felt that the people ought to exercise a voice in dealing with this matter.

urged the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. The permissive principle had for many days occupied the time of Parliament, and in now again discussing it the hon. Baronet only injured his own cause. He recommended the Amendment to be withdrawn.

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice; but he should conduct his own case in his own way. He wanted to know his Friends and the friends of popular control. As the right hon. Gentleman had to some extent, even in the present Bill, given indications of recognizing that principle, he was not without hope that at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman would go into the same lobby with him. If he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), as the Home Secretary alleged, were in advance of the age, the right hon. Gentleman lagged behind. As to the Permissive Bill being a measure of wholesale confiscation, he utterly denied the charge. The same accusation had over and over again been made in the journals of the trade against the right hon. Gentleman's own measure, and more especially in a letter recently published from a poor man who kept a public-house. It was not exactly correct, moreover, for the right hon. Gentleman to state that he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was going by his Amendment to substitute ratepayers for the magistracy.

thought he could point out a way by which the hon. Baronet could carry his measure. If he would get that portion of the ratepayers who were of his opinion to ask that they might be allowed, so far as they themselves were concerned, to prohibit the use of all spirituous liquors and the entrance into all public-houses, and would be willing to inflict penalties for non-compliance upon themselves, without interfering with the rest of the community, the House would, no doubt, give a very hearty support to his measure next Session.

moved in page 16, line 21, to leave out "time of," and insert "commencement of the time appointed for;" in line 22, "fifteen borough," and insert "ten;" in line 23, after "justices," leave out "qualified under this Act," and insert "acting in and for such borough;" in line 27 leave out "qualified borough," and insert after "justices," "acting in and for such borough;" in line 32, leave out "nine," and insert "seven;" and in same line after "number," insert "but no justice shall be appointed member of such committee unless he is qualified to act under this Act." Further, as the Bill came down from the Lords, it did not deal with the small boroughs, and he should therefore introduce a new clause for the purpose, which he hoped would meet it satisfactorily.

believed it would be found still more convenient if the number were reduced to six instead of the proposed number.

, in order to supply the deficiency of which he had spoken, then moved the omission of all the words from "in boroughs," page 17, line 5, to the end of the clause, and the insertion of the following:—

"In boroughs in which there are not ten justices acting in and for such borough at such time as aforesaid, new licenses shall be granted by the qualified borough justices, but the grant of a new license by such justices shall not be valid unless it is confirmed by a joint committee appointed in respect of such borough in manner hereinafter mentioned: A joint committee for any such borough as last aforesaid shall consist of three justices of the county in which such borough is situate, and three justices of the borough, but no justice shall be appointed a member of such committee unless he is qualified to act under this Act. The three county justices on a joint committee shall be appointed by the county licensing committee. The same county justices may be appointed members of more than one joint committee under this section. The borough justices on a joint committee shall be appointed by the justices of the borough for which they act, or by the majority of such justices assembled at any meeting held for that purpose. Any casual vacancy arising in the joint committee from death, resignation, or other cause, may from time to time be filled up by the justices by whom the person creating such vacancy was appointed. The quorum of the joint committee shall be five members. The joint committee shall at every meeting elect a chairman, and in the event of an equal division of the committee the chairman shall have a second vote. Provided that so far as respects any new licenses to be granted in any borough at any general annual licensing meeting, or any adjournment thereof, held between the twentieth of August and the end of September in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy two, the following enactments shall take effect:—1. If no licensing committee has been appointed in the county in which a borough is situate, for which a joint committee is required to be appointed by this Act, the county members of the joint committee shall be appointed by the justices in quarter sessions assembled, and in any such borough as last aforesaid, any new license, if confirmed by the joint committee, shall be in force from the date of the confirmation thereof until the eleventh day of October, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three. 2. All notices and ministerial acts given or done in relation to the grant of such licenses shall be valid, notwithstanding such notices may he given or acts be done before the appointment of a borough licensing committee, and the borough justices may appoint a time at which the borough licensing committee will be prepared to grant new licenses. No objection shall be made to any licenses granted or confirmed in pursuance of this section on the ground that the justices or committee of justices who granted or confirmed the same were not qualified to make such grant or confirmation. From and after the passing of this Act, the justices of a county shall not for licensing purposes, save in so far as respects the power of appointing members of a joint committee, have any jurisdiction in a borough in which the borough justices have for such purposes concurrent jurisdiction."

said, this was an extraordinary Amendment, for it would take the jurisdiction of the borough magistrates and give it to the county magistrates, who, if they attended at all, would only discharge their duty in a perfunctory manner. If it were agreed to, it would cause a great deal of ill-feeling. Moreover, he objected to an appeal from borough merely to county magistrates.

said, the hon. Member could hardly be aware that at the present time an appeal lay solely to the justices of Quarter Sessions. If the county justices should not attend, then the borough justices would be in a majority, and they would have no reason to complain.

opposed the Amendment, because he believed it would do a great injustice to borough magistrates.

supported the Amendment, believing that the introduction of the county element into the borough licensing authority would have a beneficial result. During the whole history of this question, complaints had constantly been made of the conduct of magistrates in small boroughs. He suggested that, in order to avoid any jealousy between the borough and county justices, it should be provided that the chairman should be the senior magistrate.

objected to the clause, but admitted that it was analogous to one just passed.

defended the proposal, believing it would make the borough justices act cautiously, and that an appeal would seldom be necessary.

said, it was evidently intended to introduce into our law a totally new principle. From this Amendment it would appear that the borough magistrates were incapable of performing their own business, for the grant of a new license would not be a perfect act until it had been confirmed by a joint committee of county and borough magistrates. If agreed to, the provision would cause great dissatisfaction.

said, the Bill would take away the right of appeal given by the Act of 1828, in the case in which a new license was refused.

was of opinion that that right should be preserved, and intimated his intention of moving an Amendment to provide for its continuance.

, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), contended that the borough magistrates were competent to discharge the duties devolving upon them, and that they had satisfactorily done so.