§ As amended, considered.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir S. EVANS, Glamorganshire, Mid.) moved the following new clause: "(1) Nothing in the Licensing Acts with respect to closing hours shall prevent the supply of intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises on Sunday during any hours during which those premises might have been open on Sunday for the sale of intoxicating liquor before the passing of this Act to any person taking a meal on the premises in a room set apart for the purpose. (2) It is hereby declared that notwithstanding anything in the Licensing Acts with respect to the closing of licensed premises refreshments (other than intoxicating liquor) may be supplied to any person during closing hours, and no person is liable to any penalty under the Licensing Acts for supplying any such refreshments, or for being on licensed premises during closing hours for the purpose of obtaining any such refreshments." The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the first sub-clause had become necessary by reason of Amend-
ments which the Government promised to make when they were discussing Clause 18 of the Bill in Committee. That discussion took place on a Friday, and very interesting speeches were made, one certainly not the least important or interesting by the Leader of the Opposition, to which he and they all listened with a great deal of pleasure, although they did not agree with every part of it. He would state quite shortly what the provisions would be as regards Sunday closing, before he came to the Amendment. The proposals to be adopted, as they were now upon the Paper, would be that, instead of six hours Sunday opening in the country there would be three hours, and instead of seven hours in London there would be four hours. The six hours which were the opening hours in the country under the present law were the two hours from 12.30 to 2.30 in the afternoon, subject to the local alteration which might be made by local justices, and 6 to 10 in the evening; while in London they were 1 to 3 in the afternoon and 6 to 11 in the evening. For ordinary public -houses and for ordinary drinking facilities, as he had said, the hours would be reduced in the country from six to three hours, and in the Metropolitan district from seven to four hours. But it was pointed out that there would be a great inconvenience arising from this change to people in the habit of dining at restaurants on Sundays, and the first subsection of his new clause was to provide for that. It was quite simple, and what it meant was that for the purpose of people who were desirous of taking meals upon licensed premises on Sunday the hours were to be exactly the same as the hours for opening under the present law, and, of course, during the consumption of the meal, and as part of the meal, it would be quite possible for the person partaking of the meal to get his intoxicating liquor in the hotel without infringing the law. The second subsection was a declaratory clause. A good deal of discussion had arisen in the House, and in the Press also, upon the state of the law as it at present existed. He was responsible, so far as this Bill was concerned, to the best of his ability, for placing in the possession of the Members who had to listen to him the
state of the law. He could not always be right, no lawyer ever was, and it was very dfficult for any lawyer however eminent to say what was meant until they got to the House of Lords, and then lawyers who were over-ruled by that tribunal were apt to say that the House of Lords were mistaken. He had looked into this matter very carefully since the discussion in the House, and, fortunately, it was the Prime Minister who first, in his capacity as lawyer and not as First Lord of the Treasury, stated what his view of the law was. The Prime Minister said that whatever privileges hotels and refreshment rooms enjoyed now they would enjoy subsequent to this limitation. The law, as he understood it, was plain. And then he said that.—
Places where liquor was sold by retail were to be closed for that purpose and no other. It was lawful to keep the premises open for the accommodation of wants such as a cup of tea or milk, and that they were closed merely for the purpose of supplying drink.
Then there was an interruption by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and the Prime Minister said he thought his hon. friend would agree with him that that was generally understood to be the law, that no offence would be committed, and the law would remain as it was. He agreed with that view. Later on in the discussion, on being pressed, he said that that being their view of the law he was quite willing to put down a declaratory clause to that effect, in order that, it there should be any doubt, that doubt should no longer exist. Since that discussion, he had had the opportunity of looking into the matter further and the benefit of reading the criticisms which had been made by other people. As a result, he was strengthened in his opinion that the Prime Minister's view of the law was right. It was quite true that, if they merely looked at Section 3 of the Act of 1874, the words appealed to be clear and imperative. The words were that the premises "shall be closed" during certain hours. The provision which was in force before Section 3 of the Act of 1874 was contained in Section 24 of the Act of 1872. That section was repealed and was split up into other sections, and certain of its contents now appeared as Sections 3, 9, 10, and possibly some others in the Act of 1874.
He thought it would be abundantly clear that in the Act of 1872 closing merely meant a prohibition against supplying intoxicating liquors—in other words, that the premises need not be closed for any lawful purpose such as serving a meal. When they came to the Act of 1874, Sections 9 and 10, it was quite clear that no penalty was laid upon anybody who did not keep his premises closed. The penalty was confined, in the one case, to the person selling drink, and, in the other, to the person obtaining drink for the purpose of consumption. It was admitted by all lawyers that there was no penalty under the Act itself if the premises were open, unless they were open for the purpose of supplying drink. But it had been pointed out by an old and eminent friend of his, Sir Harry Poland, in a letter to The Times, that it might, nevertheless, be that there was a disobedience to the provision of the Act of Parliament which required that the premises should be closed, and then, for such disobedience, the old common law doctrine came in, namely, that they could indict a person who was disobedient to the command of the statute. That was true as a general principle, but it was to be limited by this, that if it appeared by the statute that, for whatever offence was created, there was a penalty also created by the statute, they did not invoke the common law right of prosecuting by way of indictment. Sir Harry Poland himself, in the letter to which he had referred, said he was not quite prepared to say that an indictment would lie. Sir Harry was as modest as a lawyer of his eminence always was. But others were not so modest, and the leader writer of The Times rushed in where Sir Harry Poland feared to tread. This was what the leader writer of The Times said in the matter—
The Solicitor-General has committed himself to the proposition that a public-house may be open during closing hours for the sale of food so long as drink is not sold. Some one ironically told him to go and learn law from the policeman outside.
Personally, he did not mind from whom he learned law if only he could learn it—
And one does not need to be either a Solicitor-General or a policeman to see that the law plainly forbids the house to be open during certain hours without any mention of the
things sold. The offence is complete if the house is open.
One did not need to be either a Solicitor-General or a policeman to know that. All he needed to be was an anonymous leader writer on The Times newspaper.
As for the public who may want food, they must suffer under the restrictions imposed upon those who want drink. The contention to the contrary is typical of the careless way in which the whole subject has been treated.
Let him give the House two or three instances to show that it was impossible that there could be an offence constituted as suggested—the offence of opening the premises, or rather, not keeping the premises closed, although there was no intention to supply drink at all. In the first place, if there were an absolute imperative command in Section 3 of the Act of 1874, it was quite clear that the House could not be opened for the purpose of allowing a lodger or a bona fide traveller to enter, because, when they came to Sections 9 and 10, what they found was that the licensed victualler was allowed to supply drink to the lodger or to the bona fide traveller. If it was necessary for him to close his premises, then these sections ought to have provided that he ought, also, to be allowed to open the premises for the purpose he had indicated. There was another matter which, he thought, made it even much clearer. It was the provision with regard to six days licences. The provision with regard to these licences was Section 10 of the Act of 1874, which provided that no person holding a six days licence should sell any intoxicating liquor on Sunday to any person whatever not lodging in his house. The House would see-that a person holding a six days licence could not supply drink even to a bona fide traveller on Sunday. He also wanted to call attention to the position of the innkeeper, who might, or might not, be an ale-house keeper. Under the old common law, if an innkeeper was also an ale-house keeper, his house was subject to the provisions with regard to closing in the Act of 1874. By the common law, every person who kept a common inn was under an obligation to receive, and to offer proper entertainment to every one who offered himself as his guest if there was sufficient room for him in the inn. It had also been held that, if an innkeeper refused to
accommodate a traveller or wayfarer, he was liable to prosecution by way of indictment, and it had been further held by the Courts that it was not a defence for the innkeeper to say that his guest was travelling on a Sunday and at an hour of night when the innkeeper and his family had gone to bed. So that an innkeeper who was an alehouse-keeper was in the position that he must open his house for the traveller, who was not necessarily the same person as the bona fide traveller—that was the common law of the matter—otherwise he was guilty of an offence. The argument on the other side was that, if he opened his house on Sunday, he was liable to prosecution by way of indictment. What an extraordinary state of things that would be! The position was this. The common law said they could indict an innkeeper who refused to supply reasonable refreshments to the traveller or wayfarer, and, at the same time, it was said they could also indict him if he opened his house. That was a state of things which was absolutely impossible. He desired to make one further observation with reference to the provision as regarded refreshment houses under the Act of 1864. It was quite clear, upon reference to the sections dealing with these houses, in so far as they now applied, that these houses could not be opened to supply any refreshments at all. That was a specific enactment. No doubt it might be argued, if that were so with regard to refreshment houses, why not with regard to licensed houses; but that was not a legal argument. He thought that Sir Harry Poland's letter must have been written in his well-earned leisure, when he had no access to his law-books. This was a matter that had been decided for thirty-one years. It came up for decision in 1877 before Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Field, in the Divisional Court, and on this matter, in this form, there had not been any question of appeal. The question arose with regard, to a grocer's licence, but that made no difference at all, because the provisions with regard to closing were precisely the same in the case of an off-licence as they were in the case of an ordinary licence. Mr. Justice Mellor, in his judgment said—
This conviction cannot be upheld. I do not know what may have been the original intention
of the legislature, but I think that Section 3 has not the meaning which at first sight it would appear to have, and that the penalty is not imposed upon any person who, after the hour mentioned in the section, keeps open his premises for some purpose unconnected with the sale of intoxicating liquors. … Taking these facts together, I think the safer construction of Section 3 is to hold that it applies to persons who, after the prescribed hour, keep open their premises for the purpose of selling liquor, but that the magistrates are not justified in convicting when it appears that nothing of the kind was intended. In Brigden v. Heighes the argument of the counsel for the appellant and the judgment of the Court rely, no doubt, upon the fact that there was a bona fide closing of the grocer's shop, and not merely upon the fact that there was no evidence that liquor was exposed for sale, and both I and my brother Field probably used expressions from which it might be argued that we thought that the Act requires that the house and premises where the liquor is sold must be closed. But we had not to consider a case like the present, and I must hold that, in the absence of proof that there was a sale or exposure for sale of liquor, the conviction was wrong.
Mr. Justice Field, having stated that he was of the same opinion went on to say that—
The statement in the case, 'the justices thought that Sections 3 and 9 were unexceptional, and that it was imperative that the appellant should close his licensed premises at ten o'clock,' shows that they thought they were bound to convict. The construction of Section 3 which Mr. Biron has suggested, according to which there is a simple prohibition to keep open, during certain hours, premises of a particular description, at first caused me some difficulty, but the arguments which we have heard have quite removed it.
That was a definite and distinct decision on the point. That was all he had to say in justification of the view expressed by the Prime Minister and himself upon the law of the matter. They had now declared the law so that hereafter there might be no doubt. With regard to policy, it had been thought by some of his hon. friends that it would have been better to leave the law in the state of doubt in which it was than to have dissipated the doubt. Though he did not think there was any doubt, he did not think that they were proceeding upon at all unsound lines in declaring the law to be as it was. It had been said that there would be a difficulty in policing That was possible. On the other hand, licensed victuallers would be very careful before they opened their premises, because if the premises were once opened, a prosecutor need only go one step further and bring some prima facie
evidence that they were opened for the purpose of soiling or the consumption of intoxicating liquour. Immediately they gave prima facie, evidence which would lead to that conclusion, the onus was on the other side to show that the premises were not open for such purpose and that anybody that might be on the premises was not present for an illegal purpose. Therefore, licensed victuallers, especially at the present day when the magistrates and police were vigilant to secure the proper observance of the law, would be extremely careful not to open their premises for the purposes of evading the law, because if it was proved after these declarations they did so they would be face to face with the possibility—almost the certainty—that their licences would be taken from them without any compensation. Members on both sides of the House were anxious to make the public-house something more than a mere place for drinking. The more they increased the facilities for the supply of meals there the better the public-house might be. He thought it would be intolerable that the law should be such that, supposing a respectable individual—supposing he himself—happened to be in a village where there were licensed premises, and at eleven o'clock on Sunday morning, not necessarily having travelled three miles—
§ SIR S. EVANS
Or six miles. The question of being a traveller did not enter into this matter. If in such circumstances he told a respectable ale-house keeper that he wanted some bacon and eggs and a cup of coffee—that he had not had his breakfast—it would be intolerable that the man being willing to serve him should not be allowed to do so.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE (Sheffield, Central)
The hon. and learned Gentleman forgets that he ought to be at church at eleven o'clock.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he would make the hour half-past ten o'clock, and would suppose that he told the alehouse-keeper that he was extremely anxious to have a nice breakfast in order that he might 735 go to church, for, as a child could not benefit by teaching if sent starving to school, it was possible that he could not enjoy the service and sermon without having breakfasted. It would be intolerable that the alehouse-keeper should not be allowed to provide him with a meal if the man were willing to do so, for, of bourse, unless the alehouse-keeper were an innkeeper he would not be bound to admit him to the premises at that hour. It was a very interesting point and a very important one, and for that reason he wished to make quite clear to the House what the law was, and he also wanted to say to those friends of his who feared that this would lead to the improper use of a public-house, that the Government on the other hand believed it would have the exactly contrary effect. He begged to move.
(1) Nothing in the Licensing Acts with respect to closing hours shall prevent the supply of intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises on Sunday during any hours during which those premises might have been open on Sunday for the sale of intoxicating liquor before the passing of this Act to any person taking a meal on the premises in a room set apart for the purpose. (2) It is hereby declared that notwithstanding anything in the Licensing Acts with respect to the closing of licensed premises refreshments (other than intoxicating liquor) may be supplied to any person during closing hours, and no person is liable to any penalty under the Licensing Acts for supplying any such refreshments, or for being on licensed premises during closing hours for the purpose of obtaining any such refreshments.'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Brought up and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ * MR. G. D. FABER (York)
said the House was delighted though somewhat surprised to learn from the hon. and learned Gentleman that his proper condition precedent to divine worship was bacon, eggs, and coffee. He had always understood that fasting was the more appropriate accompaniment of prayer. Members of the Opposition had, during the Committee stage of this Bill, always appreciated the ability and urbanity of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They never quite knew which predominated. It was some- 736 times the one and sometimes the other But it would need all those great qualities to justify the position in which the Solicitor-General now found himself at this late stage of the Bill. The Bill, in many respects, resembled the chameleon, which changed its hue from day to day, either according to the particular advice of the Gentleman who happened to be in charge of it, or according to that particular party of the supporters of the Government which happened to have the uppermost hand at the moment. In regard to this clause the-Solicitor-General had taken them back to the topic they discussed a fortnight ago in Committee as Sunday closing, and in order that the House might fully appreciate this matter he would read the clause as it then stood—Premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold by retail shall be closed during the whole of Sunday except for one hour between noon and 3 p.m., and for any two hours between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m., those hours to be fixed as respects any licensing district by the licensing justices of the district.He need not read the next four lines; and then came—This subsection shall not apply to premises in the Metropolitan district.When the discussion on this clause took place in Committee three lines of argument were developed. The hon. Member for Scarborough contended that it was not fair to define the hours in the way in which they were defined in the clause, and that it would be better to leave some elasticity to the licensing authorities and to allow them to fix the post noon hours in the way most agreeable to the community. The second line of argument dealt with what would be the effect, on restaurants and hotels of this alteration of hours in the clause; and the third, what would be the effect of including the Metropolitan area in the now hours for in the course of a most interesting discussion, at a late hour in the afternoon the Under-Secretary to the Home Department had announced to the astonishment of a great many Members present that the Metropolitan area would follow the rest of the country.
What was the effect of all this? It was provided that premises in which intoxicating liquors were sold by retail 737 should be closed during the whole of Sunday except for three hours between noon and 10 p.m., those hours to be fixed by the licensing justices of the district subject to the condition that one of the hours must be between noon and 3 p.m., and provided that, in the application of these times to the Metropolitan area, there should be substituted four hours for three hours and 11 p.m. for 10 p.m. The latest change now proposed by the Solicitor-General had been made in response to a universal outcry in the Metropolitan area on the part of hotels and restaurants, for the effect of the clause as first amended would have been to penalise the whole of the business of restaurants and hotels on Sundays. He would confine himself to the Metropolitan area. The open hours in that area at present were one to three o'clock and six to eleven o'clock. The effect of the clause as now amended would be to leave licensed houses open daring those hours, not for the mere purpose of drinking, but for those who took a meal during those hours in a room set apart for the purpose. Outside those hours, licensing justices might fix twelve to one o'clock, and even to six o'clock, as the open hours for the sale of intoxicants. Thus from twelve to one a person would be in the bar. From one to three would be the hours for serving liquor with meals. From three to six o'clock the bar would be open, again, for the licensing justices could fix any three hours they liked in the afternoon. From six to eleven o'clock the premises would be open again for meals, and intoxicating liquor taken with meals. That might be the effect of the new clause. Personally, he was a most abstemious man, not on account of conscience, but because intoxicating liquor did not suit his health. For many years past he had not attended bars except at railway stations, or when the House sat late. But he would imagine himself taking advantage of the new scale of hours. At twelve o'clock on Sunday he would go down to the bar of the "Criterion." He would talk to the lady behind the bar—because as the Bill at present stood the ladies were not to be excluded. They could discuss politics and the iniquities of the present Government, 738 and that took up his Sunday hour between twelve and one o'clock. He was still on the "Criterion" premises, and then came one to three o'clock. He could occupy himself during those two hours in taking a meal and having intoxicating liquor with the meal. Between three and six o'clock the bar was open again; he had got three hours at the bar, which might or might not be more than he required. Between six and eleven o'clock the premises were open to him for meals with intoxicating liquors. Therefore, actually from mid-day on Sunday until eleven o'clock at night there was nothing to prevent him stopping during the whole of that period on the premises of the "Criterion." But there was more to come, because under subsection (2) of the new clause licensed premises might be open during closing hours except for the sale of non-intoxicants. This, he thought, was a concession to the bad law laid down by the Prime Minister a fortnight ago. The Prime Minister got into collision with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University upon the subject of what might be done on licensed premises during closing hours. The Prime Minister thought it possible to have a cup of coffee and a sandwich, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman had done something of the kind himself. His hon. and learned friend thought that under the true reading of the Act of 1874, nothing of the kind could be done, and that to open licensed premises at all during closing hours was a breach of the law, although it did not carry a penalty. Sir Harry Poland appeared to have agreed rather with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University than with the Prime Minister, and the result of that disagreement had been that the Government had put the matter beyond all doubt, and had amended the law according to this new clause. He would now proceed to show, when the "Criterion" closed at eleven o'clock on Sunday, what a man could do under this change in the law. He could remain upon the premises all through Sunday night asking for sandwiches and soda-water. He could stop there all night; there was nothing to prevent him. It was the exact effect of 739 this new subsection. He would just sum up the position. He had been on the "Criterion" premises from twelve midday on Sunday till eleven o'clock at night. He then stopped on the premises and said: "Closing hours do not refer to me at all under the new exposition of the law," and he remained there all night asking for everything except intoxicants. He could ask for a devilled kidney, if the cook was kept up, and perhaps take a flask out of his pocket and drink his own whisky. It was not a parody of the position. All sorts of extraordinary complications arose as well. To begin with, what was a meal? He had looked in Chambers' Dictionary, which said that a square meal was a full meal. Evidently a "meal" was not a full meal. Was a sandwich a meal? In that connection they must take into account the idiosyncrasies of human beings. Some people took only a sandwich at lunch. In their case a sandwich would be a meal. It a "meal" was interpreted wrongly, the unfortunate restaurant - keeper risked losing his licence. A man might ask for a brandy-and-soda and a sandwich. The restaurant-keeper might reply, "Are you accustomed to consider a sandwich as a meal, because if you are not I may lose my licence if I serve you?" There was another point. The section said "taking a meal." Might they only have intoxicating liquor during those hours while they were actually taking a meal? Suppose they took a meal first and then their drink; a great many people did. Were they taking their drink in such a case during the meal or not? Let them take another case which would certainly arise, of a man having had a meal in a hotel and afterwards adjourning for coffee and liqueur to another room. Would he be able to take his liqueur in an adjoining room, or must he take it in the room where he had taken his meal? All these possible complications, upon which a licence depended, were flung, in the shape of this new clause, at their heads upon one of the last days on which the Bill would be before the House. The Government had had months and months to consider these questions. Before they interfered with the hours in the Metropolis they ought to have foreseen the consequences. He had put 740 a Resolution on the Paper some time ago asking that the draftsman of the Bill should attend at the bar of the House in order to explain the Amendments. When he put that Resolution down he was not in any way throwing any doubt upon the ability or industry of that gentleman, who had had an impossible task imposed upon him. The Government changed their mind and their Bill from day to day. One day they put an Amendment on the Paper and the next day withdrew it, and another day they put it back again, until there was no man in the House who knew what the position was except that it was an intolerable one.
§ MR. JAMES HOPE
said the hon. Member for York had covered the ground fairly completely, and he did not know that he could touch upon anything very new, but he would like to put to the Government what a very difficult position a publican Would be in on a Sunday. He recognised that this was a concession, but he thought before they accepted it they must know something more about its actual working. There would be three different periods on a Sunday. There would be a period in which anyone could go into a house and obtain non-alcoholic refreshment; then a period in which anyone could obtain alcoholic refreshment without taking a meal; and a third period in which a person could go into a house and take alcoholic refreshment with a meal. He submitted that breaking the day up into those three periods would make the business of the publican on Sunday one of extreme difficulty, and one which would be added to in this way. The clause said—During any hours on which these premises might have been open on Sunday for the sale of intoxicating liquor before the passing of this Act.Assuming the Act to have been working for some years, he thought the average licence-holder would forget the state of the law before the passing of this Act, and he might easily be led into a slight slip by forgetting what the old hours were, and that would cost him his licence. He submitted that the hours during which the alcohol, plus meal, could be 741 taken ought to be set down in the subsection. The hon. Member for York had asked what was a meal. Well, there was a very great difficulty. Theologians for the purposes of the law of fasting had defined a meal as more than eight ounces of solid food. Were the Government prepared to accept that definition? If so, a man would have to buy solid food to the extent of eight ounces, which would have to be weighed, and until it had been weighed he would not get his alcoholic refreshment. If the Government did not accept that definition he did not know what definition they could adopt. He presumed that a biscuit to cover a whisky and soda would not be a meal. Would a sandwich be a meal? Would it be necessary for a man taking a sandwich to sit down at a table, or could he take the sandwich standing at a bar? These points must arise, and unless some definition was inserted in the Bill the utmost confusion and difficulty would result. Then he came to the words "in a room set apart for the purpose." If he were an unscrupulous man he would set apart a room, not a very large one, in a corner of which he would put a ham, which need not be too new, and an open tin of "jungle pig" from Chicago, with knives and forks and the rest, and that obviously would be a room for the ostensible purpose of eating. Anyone going into that room would be able to sit down and perhaps have a piece of ham and so get a drink with it. In this way he believed that the intention of the clause would be absolutely evaded, and it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to get a conviction in consequence. He did not know whether the Government had really thought out what was the actual meaning of "eating a meal." He believed that it would be quite possible for a publican so long as the room was ostensibly set apart, and so long as some eating was going on, to arrange in such a way that it would be impossible to prove that anybody that he supplied with liquor had not taken a meal, and unless that could be proved the whole intent of the subsection was defeated. Then he came to subsection (2). The law might be as Sir Harry Poland said, or it might be what the Solicitor-General had said, but it had not been so understood. It was not so understood, he believed, by the hon. Mem- 742 ber for Skipton, because he remembered that there was a case heard at Keighley in which the hon. Member for Skipton was sitting on the bench. Two men were convicted and fined for taking ginger ale on a Sunday morning in a public-house. Certainly it had been understood hitherto that no one was to open his house during closing hours, and in some cases prosecutions had followed a breach of what was supposed to be the law. All that was to be changed, and under this subsection licensed premises might be kept open day or night, on Sunday or weekday, at any time, so long as they were not open for the purpose of selling alcoholic liquor. That opened the door to very great possibilities. He did not suppose that many publicans would wish to keep their houses open day and night, but once competition began it would be very hard for them not to fall in, and they would be exposed to the greatest possible difficulties. For instance, if they wanted to turn a man off their premises, and he said: "No; I wish to remain, but not for the purpose of taking intoxicating liquor, I know that the hours for obtaining intoxicating liquors are passed, but I want a cup of coffee," how would the landlord be able to get rid of him? He did not see how, unless the landlord shut up the house altogether. If that were not done a man might sit all through the night until next morning. A man might remain on the premises with intoxicating liquor before him, but how was it to be proved that it had been supplied before or after eleven o'clock. He did not know whether hon. Members knew the Café Bauer in Berlin, but the proud boast was made about it that it had never once been closed since it was first opened. He submitted that under this section it would be perfectly possible for that to happen, and all sorts of abuses would arise; he need not tell them what the consequences would be; hon. Members could easily tell for themselves. If cafés and licensed premises were to be open all through the night, whatever construction they put on the sale of intoxicating liquor, it was very easy to understand what abuses would follow in their train. As his hon. friend had pointed out, a man might take his own liquor into a public-house after hours, and he might ask for a soda or seltzer to mix with his 743 whiskey. The man did not go there for the purpose of getting alcoholic liquor, but for the purpose of obtaining soda. Of course, the man really went there for the purpose of getting alcohol in the form of a mixture. It would be very easy for a man in collusion with another to go into a licensed house with a flask already filled with alcoholic liquor and order a soda or seltzer to be added to it, and in that way they could have a merry symposium together afterwards. These were not improbable cases; they were cases which would really and truly occur unless the Government made some modification of the clause, which certainly could not be accepted as it stood.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. As QUITH,) Fifeshire, E.
said he wished to remove a misconception as to the object of this clause. First of all, with regard to the second subsection to which the hon. Member directed his concluding observations. That subsection, in their opinion, was really declaratory of the law as it at present stood. He had ventured some weeks ago to state what he conceived to be the law. He quite admitted that he was no authority on the subject at present, at any rate, and he was glad to find that his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General, who was an authority, was in agreement with him. As to the Government's version of the law, it was true that it had been disputed by that very high authority, his learned friend Sir Harry Poland, whose authority was certainly second to none on matters of this kind. They were, however, able to fortify their view that theirs was the correct interpretation of the Licensing Acts, and there could be no question whatsoever about it unless the decision to which his hon. and learned friend had referred was wrong; at any rate, it had never been over-ruled. There was no question whatever that they had correctly interpreted the law, and that this clause was really an exposition of the law, not as it ought to be, not as it might be under some changed conditions and circumstances, but as it actually was and had been for the last thirty years or more. Therefore, all the difficulties raised by the hon. Gentleman applied equally to the existing state of things. There was 744 nothing new, no new development of any sort or kind in this second subsection. The strongest misconceptions seemed to prevail as to the obligations of holders of licences for the supply of refreshments. According to the law of the country if a man held himself out as an innkeeper, he kept an inn which was subject to the common and ordinary obligation to supply refreshments to customers at all reasonable times. When a man was not an innkeeper, but merely the holder of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors he was under no such obligation, and he could close his house when he liked. To suppose that this subsection, which was merely declaratory of the existing law, imposed upon persons who were not innkeepers the obligation to provide persons with non-intoxicants at all hours of the day was a completely ridiculous interpretation of the law. The subsection made no change whatever in the law. It merely cleared up a doubt as to the exact interpretation of the existing law. The other subsection dealt with Sunday opening. Here again the hon. Members for Sheffield and York, if he might say so with respect, had somewhat misdirected their undoubted ingenuity in raising spectres that were never likely to be encountered in actual practice. The provisions of the subsection were simplicity itself. What did they come to? They came to this. They said that for the purpose of drinking, and drinking merely, the hours of Sunday opening should be curtailed and reduced to three hours, and in London to four hours. But in order to get rid of the hardship which was much insisted upon, and which he thought was felt quite as much on one side of the House as on the other, namely, the hardship imposed upon restaurants, not only those which catered for the rich, but those which catered for the poor—and there were a great many of these in London and our large towns—it was felt that some elasticity should be introduced to provide for the case of people who took meals on Sunday and took drink with those meals, even though the time at which they took them should not fall within one of the three or the four hours permitted for drinking. Therefore, he did not think this was a concession, although it had been so described; giving way to common sense 745 was not a concession; it was a provision which he thought had the general assent of the House, that the law should remain as it was. Provided that a man went to the house to get a meal, what possible difficulty was there about saying what was a meal? It was a pure question of fact. All these imaginary cases about the bona fide sandwiches and so forth, would not arise when the matter came to be submitted to the common sense decision of a magistrate or a jury. So again, with the infinitely mythical problems which suggested themselves to the hon. Member for Sheffield with regard to the setting aside of a room for the purpose of eating. Gould anything be plainer than the intention of that? What was intended was that they must close the bar. They must have a room honestly set apart for the purpose of eating, and if the hon. Member or his friends tried any of those devices with stale hams and all the rest of the apparatus of deception which the hon. Member almost invited them to set up for the purpose of fraud and for the purpose of providing litigation for the amusement of the Court, he could assure them the law would continue to be administered by the light of common sense, and they would not escape conviction. That was the whole object and scope of this clause. It was in no sense revolutionary. So far as it was declaratory, it stated the law as it was at present, and so far as it amended the law, it made ample provision for the requirements of social life.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)
said it was with some trepidation that he ventured to touch upon the question of what was supposed to be the law according to the declaration contained in the clause, and what had been supposed to be the law up to the present in regard to the opening of public-houses during prohibited hours. He had not practical experience of the working of the English licensing law, but the sections of the Irish Acts were identical with those which had prevailed for so many years in this country; and in the exercise of his profession he had become familiar with them. Although Ireland was so notorious for its sobriety that it was excluded from any of the provisions of this Bill, nevertheless 746 they had had cases which raised the questions they were considering. He could not at all agree with the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the controversy as regarded the position of publicans during prohibited hours and the right to open or close their premises had been disposed of by the case to which he had referred. As he understood that case, it was a prosecution against a spirit grocer under the section which imposed a penalty for selling or exposing for sale intoxicating liquors during certain hours. He should have thought that the moment the spirit grocer opened his premises on which he had spirits exposed for sale, he committed an offence under that section, and he confessed he hardly thought it required the great ability of Mr. Justice Mellor or of Lord Justice Field to decide that. How could such a case be regarded for a moment as an authority on the question as to what was the position of a publican who was ordered by Act of Parliament to keep closed during certain hours? It had always been understood to be the law, and the law had been acted upon in that sense by the licensed trade in Ireland, that during prohibited hours they were not at liberty to open their premises for any purpose—food or otherwise—except to a bona fide traveller. He could not quite follow the criticism passed by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the contribution nude on this subject by Sir Harry Poland, because Sir Harry Poland's point was that where they had an express statutory declaration that the premises were to be closed during a certain period, if the premises were open in defiance of the statutory declaration an offence was committed at common law which could be made a subject of indictment. The hon. and learned Gentleman's answer to that was that at common law they could not indict a man for an offence if there was a penalty imposed by statute. Sir Harry Poland's point was that in this case admittedly there was no penalty imposed as a result of infringing the statutory prohibition against opening, and therefore the only way to enforce the statutory prohibition was by indictment at common law. But there was another method by which the general 747 popular view, which undoubtedly prevailed, certainly at home, and he believed in this country upon this question, namely, that the publican should not, during closed hours, open the premises for any purpose, was enforced, namely, at renewal sessions, because if there was any proof whatever that during the closing hours the publican was in the habit of opening his doors and keeping his premises open, no matter how bona fide his purpose might have been, in many cases the magistrates regarded that as misconduct, and refused to renew the licence. He quite agreed that, if that doubt existed as to the state of the law, it was desirable to clear it up, but he thought the Government had taken the wrong course, because he believed it would be infinitely better in the interests of morality and the proper conduct of these places that during prohibited hours in which Parliament said they were not to be open, they should not be allowed to be open for any purpose, and he could conceive no greater machinery for the violation of the law than this new declaration to publicans all over England. Notwithstanding any provision in any Act of Parliament that they were to keep them closed during a certain period, nevertheless they were now told for the first time that the law had been, and that the intention of this Government was that, in the future, they were to be at liberty to keep their premises open during prohibited hours at night, and throughout Sunday, the only restriction upon them being that while they could keep their premises open they were not in fact to sell drink. A vast machinery of supervision and espionage would be required to carry out the law. Even though the decision referred to might have the effect pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman it had never been so understood even in this country, and a remarkable proof of that was that during the course of the debate a few weeks ago, it was never once hinted at. Sir Harry Poland did not seem to give it that effect. They had now in this subsection a declaration from the Government to the licensing trade throughout England that notwithstanding anything which might be in any Act of Parliament, they were 748 at liberty to keep their licensed premises open, their stutters down, their shop door open, their men behind the counter, and all they had to do when the police came in during prohibited hours was to say: "We have kept them open in case some casual wayfarer should drop in in order to get his breakfast on his way to Church or his dinner on his way to evening service." The thing would lead to endless and hopeless evasion of the law, and it would be found impossible to overcome it. A loophole was given by this subsection such as had never previously existed for evading the present provisions of the law with regard to Sunday closing and early closing. The first portion of the subsection was open to many of the observations addressed to the Committee by the hon. Member for York. He believed it would increase infinitely the labour of the police in Loudon and almost paralyse hotel-keepers and restaurants in the conduct of their business, because at one stage of the day they would be ordinary hotel-keepers without a licence; a few minutes afterwards they would be full-fledged licensed publicans; in another hour they would go back to their former position, and all that was to depend upon the hands of the clock. Neither police nor hotel-keeper would know at any particular moment what was the exact legal position of the hotel-keeper or the parties who were frequenting his premises. He most strongly protested in the interest of true temperance against this new declaration by which all licensed persons were told for the first time that they were to be at liberty to keep their houses open all day and all night if they so chose, notwithstanding any provision in any Act of Parliament to the contrary.
§ * MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln)
said he did not for a moment pretend to accept the invitation of the Solicitor-General to instruct him in the law. Let him assume that the law was as the Solicitor-General said it was. He did not think that that settled the question, because the real question was whether the practice would not be altered. If it had been the law in the past it nevertheless certainly had not been understood to be the law, and if this clause now appeared in an Act of 749 Parliament they would be giving the trade an announcement which would certainly alter the practice. He did not personally object to the first sub-clause. He thought it might be a reasonable, concession, though there was one loophole for evasion there which he hoped might be stopped. But it was rather in reference to the second sub-clause that he wished to speak. Did this deal with the law dealing with unlicensed refreshment houses? They were forbidden under the Act of 1864 to sell either alcoholic refreshments or refreshments of any kind after a certain hour. He did not clearly know whether this affected their case or not. The Act of 1864 under which that prohibition rested on them was not mentioned as one of the Licensing Acts. The Act of 1874 which referred again to the question was mentioned as one of the Licensing Acts. As they were having a general clear statement of the case they wanted an answer whether the case of the unlicensed refreshment houses was dealt with or not. It certainly was required to. If they were going to allow licensed premises to sell non-alcoholic refreshments they ought to allow refreshment houses which were unlicensed to sell non-alcoholic refreshments at the same time. As to the general policy of the clause he was in some sympathy with the desire that licensed premises should provide nonalcoholic refreshment as well as alcoholic. That was the general wish of the House, he thought, and it was carried out by one of the few good points in the Act of 1904, under which an obligation was placed upon licence-holders to supply nonalcoholic refreshments. But was it really necessary to allow people to remain during prohibited hours on licensed premises at night for that purpose and did not this clause clearly allow it? It seemed to him that that point had not been met in any way. Surely men might stay on after closing hours, and if their presence was challenged by the police all they had to say was they were not there to consume alcoholic refreshments but to get non-alcoholic refreshments, and they could remain there for any length of time; He believed the object of the closing regulations was partly to make some limit upon the hours during which alcoholic liquors might be con- 750 summed and partly to stop the practice, which was certainly common before the closing regulations, of people staying in licensed premises practically all night which he did not think even the trade wanted. The Solicitor-General said it would be dangerous for the licence-holder to allow people to go into his house during prohibited hours, but it was easy to get a dozen people to swear to what was necessary for the purpose of defence. The clause would lead to any quantity of plausible evasion. It would have been quite sufficient to allow people to go in during closing hours on Sundays for the purpose of getting non-alcoholic refreshments but certainly not at night. Though perhaps merely a declaratory clause, not altering the law, it might alter the practice very seriously and lead to a state of things which it would be exceedingly difficult afterwards to remedy.
§ * MR. GRETTON (Rutland)
said that this was not a question of nicety in legal interpretation, but as to what the House intended should be the practice of the law in the future. He found himself in agreement with the view of the hon. Member that the Amendment before the House was not an interpretation of the law as at present administered. He did not doubt that there was some difficulty in the exact legal interpretation of the law of closing as it stood now, but the point which the House had to decide upon was how it wished the law to stand in future. The present law in practice was clear. At present licensed premises were closed at a certain fixed hour, and if they were not the publican was liable to be prosecuted and to have complaints formulated against him by the police when next he made an application for the renewal of his licence. But it was a complete revolution of the law as it now existed to lay down that there should be no limitation of hours for the supply of refreshments and non-intoxicating liquors. That was an entire change of the law as it stood except in the one case of innkeepers. Innkeepers' licences were taken out by the keepers of hotels for the accommodation of travellers, where travellers could not only obtain the refreshment they needed, 751 but also a night's rest. Most licensed premises had not refreshment licences; the vast majority held alehouse licences. The hon. Member for Lincoln had very properly pointed out that there was an obligation on the ordinary licence-holder to supply refreshments of a non-intoxicating character. There was a clause in the Act of 1904 which empowered the justices to refuse to renew a licence where a licensee had refused to supply refreshments other thru intoxicating liquor at a reasonable price. Under those circumstances the licence could be refused renewal on the ground that the premises had not been properly conducted. This section imposed a most stringent penalty if a publican refused to supply refreshments of a non-intoxicating character when called upon to do so. How was this section going to be carried out with unlimited hours? He was sure there had been confusion in the mind of the Government when they drew up this clause, for one serious difficulty had been overlooked and had not been brought very prominently before the House. If these unlimited hours and other obligations were to be forced upon the publicans and other keepers of these houses, what was to become of the servants and the barmaids if they were to be liable to be called upon at any hour of the day or night to supply refreshments?
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, Cleveland
There is no such obligation.
§ * MR. GRETTON
said he had given reasons for this statement. If obligations under this new clause were to lie on the licence-holder as to unlimited hours of opening, what was to become of those who were in their employment, such as barmaids and others? How was the licence-holder to get any rest, or his employees a night's sleep? The whole position required most careful and serious consideration, and he regarded the clause as a retrograde move. It was a retrograde policy which the Government were pursuing, and was contrary to all the other legislation which had been adopted by Parliament 752 to limit the hours of labour. The greatest difficulty would arise in the work of practical administration, both with the licence-holder and the police, in differentiating the periods when houses should be legally open for the supply of liquor and when they should be open for the sale of refreshments and non-intoxicating drink. The licence-holder would not know where he was, and the police officers would have the greatest difficulties thrust upon them in carrying out their duties. Anyone with experience of the licensing law must know that this clause would lead to most vexatious, costly, and difficult litigation. He could see the greatest difficulties in the way of carrying out the proposal of the Government. It was clear they had not examined carefully the present law. For these reasons he felt it obligatory on him to vote against the clause.
§ * MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)
appealed to the Government to withdraw this new clause, or at any rate a portion of it. The clause did not appear to be popular on either side of the House. [Cries of dissent.] Well, he had heard a good many speeches, but with the exception of those delivered from the front bench, none were in its favour, and he appealed to the Government to withdraw it. One of the objects of the Bill—and a very important object—was to restrict the amount of Sunday drinking, but this clause would check the full restrictions which the Government proposed by the Bill to place on Sunday drinking. There would be immense difficulty in carrying out the proposals in the clause as well as in making an attempt to differentiate the period of time when the houses should supply the one form of refreshment or the other. The houses were to be closed, but in a room set apart for the purpose, liquor with meals could be taken. It would be extremely difficult to say where the "house" ended and the "room" began. There was not only a question of geography, but also one of history, because the public and the publican would have to find out what it was that the law really meant. It would not be a question of the law as to closing as it then was, but as it had been previously. Then it 753 would be extremely hard to define a "meal." It might be possible for a man to demand an alcoholic drink, and at the same time to take a biscuit. Again, did the Government mean a "solid meal" or a "liquid meal." If the latter, soup might be allowed, and it would be possible for a large amount of alcohol to be introduced into the soup. This clause was not framed in the interests of temperance but to meet the outcry which came from certain people who were interested in fashionable London restaurants. Why should the whole country suffer on that account? Therefore, in the interest of temperance he appealed most strongly to the Government to consider whether they could not withdraw, at any rate, a great portion of the clause.
§ * MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)
said his hon. friend had made an appeal to the Government in the name of temperance, but his remarks were not couched in what he regarded as a temperance spirit. He submitted that it was the extreme spirit which was displayed by such hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division and the hon. Member for Lincoln which made it difficult to bring about temperance reform. Those hon. Gentlemen would accept no palliative of this description—nothing which rendered the Act easy and possible of fulfilment. It was their refusal to accept any Amendment of this character which jeopardised the Bill and made it more easy for it to be lost in another place. If hon. Gentlemen wished to see the Bill become law, they had better accept anything which the Government put in by way of Amendment in this direction. Nobody could accuse the Government of being backward in bringing forward this temperance Bill or in the cause of temperance reform. Hon. Members opposite had been complaining all along that the Bill was much too strong, and now when a reasonable concession to public feeling was proposed, obstacles were put in the way of passing it and the opposition opposed just as they had, when the Bill was made stiffer. Did hon. Members opposite and on his side who were objecting to the new clause think that everybody who went into a 754 public-house went there for the purpose of getting drunk? Presumably, they acted on the principle that no good thing could come from the Government. Why was there to be no room for the reasonable moderate mail who wanted to drink wine or other alcoholic beverages? He was glad that some hon. Members opposite, however, had not taken up a fanatical attitude on this subject. Supposing that one man did drink a little too much, was it right on that account that the many should go hungry because they could not get into licensed houses to have food and a moderate amount of drink? Were they to be debarred from proper opportunities of getting refreshment in order to satisfy the views of those who saw something inherently wicked in wine and other liquors apart from the immoderate use of them? He should have thought that the hon. Member for Rutland would have supported the clause, and he was amazed when he found that he objected to it. He thought the hon. Gentleman's objection could only proceed, in the Parliamentary sense of course, and without offence, from party spirit. The hon. Member for the Tavistock Division asked—What is a meal? He (Mr. Rees) had been to Finland, where this temperance arrangement of no meal, no drink, had admittedly worked with great success. He had himself come under the law in that country; he had been told that he could not have a drink of any sort, however moderate, after a hard ride or walk, without ordering a meal. An hon. Member had suggested that a person who wanted drink would order soup, and then fill it up with whisky. That would be extremely disgusting, and it was nonsense to talk of that being done. In Finland, people knew perfectly well what was the spirit of the law, and that they were bound to obey it. There seemed to be no kind of reason in the objection to the clause, and, therefore, so far from urging the Government to withdraw it, he congratulated them on bringing it forward.
§ MR. PIKE PEASE (Darlington)
said the speech of the Solicitor-General was one of extreme importance. He had made it perfectly plain that the law was 755 not what everyone had understood it to be for many years. Public-houses were supposed to be partially closed on Sundays. He thought it was a very serious thing that the country should realise that public-houses were now practically to be opened on all occasions on Sundays. He was one of those who last week voted in favour of the Sunday closing provision. He looked at this subject purely from two points of view—one was the Sabbatarian and the other that which he had just raised. Supposing that at the present time a publican desired to go away from his public-house with his wife and family for the day it was allowable for him to do so. But if, as the Solicitor-General said, it was not permitted to the publican to refuse to supply non-alcoholic, drink on Sunday it was quite impossible for him to go away from the public-house and leave it unattended. According to the Solicitor-General, it would be an indictable offence if the publican did not supply nonalcoholic liquor when wanted.
§ MR. PIKE PEASE
had no intention of giving the idea that he was attributing to the Solicitor-General something which he did not say. At any rate, the ordinary village inn was bound to supply food at any time on Sunday whether in or out of closing hours.
§ MR. PIKE PEASE
said that was not the law as now understood in the country. If inquiry were made in any village it would be found that there was a certain time when these public-houses were absolutely closed, and none of the public were allowed to go in. It was plain that many people who did not work on Sundays at present would, if the Bill was passed into law, be required to work on that day. There would then be more wants in regard to food and non-alcoholic beverages. It was a mistake to say that such a subsection as this would induce the House of Lords to pass this measure. He thought it would have exactly the opposite effect.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)
said his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General must be a little surprised at the course the debate had taken because it had dealt mainly with subsection (2) of the new clause, which was put in entirely at the instigation of hon. Members opposite.
§ MR. YOUNGER (Ayr Burghs)
I think it was put in to explain the position of the law as stated by the Prime Minister on this particular point.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES
I am speaking from memory, but I think the Prime Minister stated the law, and it was challenged on the other side by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who asked that some declaratory clause should be put in the Bill to make the law clear.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
I challenged across the floor the statement as to the law which was given by the Prime Minister. I said I did not know technically, but that I knew practically what it was. I have made inquiry since, and I understand the law in a contrary sense to that stated by the Prime Minister. I then put in a written Question, simply asking what the Government intended to do upon the point, and the Home Secretary courteously replied that he proposed to put in a subsection declaratory of the existing law. But it certainly was not at my request in any way.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES
said that as the result of what happened in the Committee stage, the Government put in this explanatory clause giving their view of the law, and he understood that their view was that this clause was wholly unnecessary. The Government regarded it in that way, and the Opposition did not welcome it, and he therefore ventured to ask the Government to withdraw it. The defence of the Solicitor-General was that the law was perfectly 757 clear at present, and that they were merely stating in words what was the law. When eminent legal authorities disputed one with another as to its meaning he did not know how it could be said that it was perfectly clear. The object of the Government was not to change the law, but whether they changed it or not there seemed to be the gravest danger that they were going to change the practice. The change was not desired by anybody. The present practice had worked fairly satisfactorily on the whole. That was not disputed. They had not been inundated with complaints from travellers and others as to the past working of the law. From a police point of view, it was extremely undesirable that any change should be made. He ventured to say that if a conference of all the chief constables in the country were called, the unanimous verdict on the subject would be against inserting this subsection. The instructions given to the police were to see that there were no strangers on licensed premises during the prohibited hours. If they were there, they must explain the reason of their presence to the police; and if they could not give a good account of themselves, the police had instructions to arrest the strangers. If this subsection were carried, the police throughout the country would have to be increased in order to see that the law was observed. He hoped that he had shown that there was no demand for this subsection. No one in the House wanted it. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"!] Well, no one who had spoken in the debate except the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had asked that the clause should be read a second time, and therefore he advised the Government to withdraw it. There were one or two observations he wished to make with regard to the first subsection. The first was as to the meal, which he thought was not quite so simple a matter as the lawyers imagined. As a matter of fact, it was more a matter of practice than of law. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had told them that he had no difficulty in regard to the matter.
§ * MR. LEIF JONES
said that there he agreed with the hon. Member. If there was no specification of what a meal was, then a meal might become only a pretence for obtaining a drink. At any rate, the result would be that an easy means of evading the law would be provided by this subsection. Further—and he asked the special attention of the Committee to this point—he was very much afraid that under subsection (1) the practice of treating might be increased. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION benches: Good gracious!] Now, treating was one of the great practical evils of the licensing system. Every temperance worker knew the evils that arose from treating. He had been told more than once that if they could stop treating they would do more for temperance reform than anything in this Bill. He submitted that under subsection (1) treating might go on during the closing hours. There was no limit to the amount of liquor to be supplied to a person ordering a meal. Supposing he went into a public-house during the prohibited hours with half a dozen friends and ordered a meal and with it a gallon of beer. Supposing he poured the beer out to his friends and only ate a biscuit, there would be seven people who could go on consuming intoxicating liquor during the prohibited hours without any evasion of subsection (1) as it now stood. So much did he feel this that he had put down an Amendment to make it clear that the liquor to be supplied should be exclusively for the consumption of the person ordering the meal. He might be told that that was a fanciful evil; but it was very important that in legislation of this kind they should block every possible loophole. He did not say that publicans were more unscrupulous than other people. He knew that the publicans were a chosen people, specially selected for a licence on the ground of character; but it was asking too much of them when it was said that they would not take advantage of a loophole in an Act of Parliament which was passed for the purpose of restricting their operations. Therefore, 759 he hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment on this point. He only wanted to say as a last word that, while he was opposed to the clause as a whole, still he thought that the difficulties in relation to London restaurants and eating houses called for special dealing; but this did not in the least justify subsection (2); and he hoped that the Government would be induced to withdraw subsection (2) and amend subsection (1) so as to meet the views expressed from every section of the House.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)
said they were all willing to attribute to the Government the best possible intentions, but after considering this clause with care, he confessed that he did not think that they had been very happy in giving effect to their good intentions. The clause was both complicated and vague. The licensing laws were at present surrounded with sufficient pitfalls and difficulties, but these would be increased in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. Under this clause there were to be four periods in the course of the week in which the legal sale of liquor would vary. The first was what they might call the new Sunday hours, during which intoxicants and non-intoxicants could be sold to all persons in or out of a special room set apart for serving meals. Then there was a period representing the difference between the new Sunday hours and what might be called the ante-1908 Sunday hours, during which the publican might sell on six days of the week intoxicants, but on Sundays he might not sell intoxicants except in a room specially set apart with a meal. Then he might sell intoxicants during the ordinary week days during the prescribed hours. Then there was this now strange period outside the ordinary recognised weekday hours, during which it was now to be made plain that he might have guests on his premises provided he did not supply them with intoxicating liquors. He could not help thinking that this clause was unduly and unnecessarily complex. He did not share the optimism of the Prime Minister about a meal and a room. It appeared to him that the first subsection invited evasion, and 760 would go far to justify that evasion in public opinion. He had been told—he did not know with what truth—that in certain parts of the United States, where some rule analogous to this obtained, a sandwich went very far in covering up with its solid respectability the purchase and sale of intoxicating liquors. He had heard of a sandwich which had chaperoned a large number of such transactions, extending over a period of months, until at last it was inadvertently consumed by a customer in an absentminded moment. There would be a difficulty about the meal—he was quite positive about that—and in the further double restriction as to the room set apart for the purpose of supplying the meal. What was going to happen in a case, very familiar in London, of a place where there was a large apartment in which there were a great number of tables where genuine meals were served with drinks, and where there was a bar across which solid meals were also served with drinks? Was that to be regarded as a real genuine room set apart for the service of meals? Great difficulties would arise, he was afraid, with regard to that point. He could not help thinking that this clause would work out in favour of large and against small establishments unable to provide a separate room. But his main difficulty with regard to the optimistic observations of the Prime Minister on this matter, was not legal but practical. The great difficulty was that on a question of law the matter could be settled once for all, but when it was a question of fact that was a question for the tribunal to decide. One tribunal might well say that what was served was a meal, and another tribunal might say that it was not; so that the licensed victualler would never know what a local tribunal would decide as to what was a meal. It was the uncertainty of making this an issue of fact that troubled his mind. The second subsection was very important. This was not the place to indulge in a disquisition as to whether or not that subsection accurately set out the existing law. He himself had considerable doubts as to whether it did. But the Prime Minister had spoken, not only as to the law as it was at present, but the law as it ought to be. He understood that 761 the Government was not only interested in the licensing law as it was, but were much more interested in the licensing law as it ought to be; and he was surprised that it should have been reserved for this Government to make it clear that it was the law, if it were the law, that public houses could be kept open at all hours of the day, provided that no intoxicants were sold. He assumed that the police had an equal legal right to visit the public-houses both inside and outside the prohibited hours; but there would be the great difficulty about the intoxicating drink which was brought into the house before the prohibited hours. He asked the Solicitor-General how they were to deal under this second subsection with that case. They knew now that when the closing time came the revellers were ejected from the licensed premises, and they sometimes went home. What was to prevent persons presenting themselves with a flask of whisky or other intoxicating spirit, buying soda water, or helping themselves to water, and sitting in a licensed house drinking till all hours of the night? The men might come in before closing time, and sit and drink there till that hour was reached. What was to prevent them from sitting in the public-house and consuming a bottle of whisky, which they had lawfully bought at a proper time for hours afterwards? At places like the Savoy when the proper time came they were turned out, but what would happen if this law was passed? The managers did not want to offend their guests by turning them out, and so far as he could see, the licensed places, high and low, would remain open and practically, if not technically, sell intoxicating liquors at all hours of the night.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that such a case would be a breach of the existing law, which prohibited the consumption on licensed premises after hours of intoxicating liquor purchased before hours.
§ * MR. CLAVELL SALTER
thought it was serious and startling that a Liberal Government should make this proposal, and in conclusion he would say this one thing. Those who 762 worked on licensed premises were very hard worked people; they worked long and irregular hours. Would it not add greatly to the hardship of their lives, to pass a clause which encouraged licensed persons to remain open all night? It would have a disastrous effect upon the employees, and for that reason he thought they must regard the whole of this clause with considerable disfavour.
§ * MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)
earnestly hoped that the Government would not withdraw either portion of this new clause, which seemed to him to be one of the very few reasonable concessions to public liberty for which they had had to thank the Government in the course of this discussion. All the Government proposed under subsection (1) was to leave things exactly as they were at present, and people who dined or lunched out on Sunday, a habit which was growing very extensively in this country, would still be at liberty to do so. But for this first subsection as the Bill was framed it would be impossible for anybody to go out to lunch or dinner or invite others to join them in doing so on Sunday. Sunday was already dull enough. After a few hours spent in church there was nothing else to do, and consequently he desired to tender his thanks to the Government for, with regard to meals on licensed premises, leaving Sunday unimpaired by the Bill. He thought this was a most valuable concession on the part of the Government. Assuming as he did that the views of the Solicitor-General were correct, everybody in the world now knew that licensed premises might be opened at any portion of the day or night for the supply of non-alcoholic drinks and refreshments, and he should tell his friend the manager of the Savoy if he was there to-night that he need not close at half-past twelve but could give them a reasonable time for taking their suppers, without inconvenience or the risk of indigestion. He had always thought it a scandal to civilisation that respectable people who had been to the theatre or the opera, could not get an opportunity of having a little supper in a licensed restaurant or hotel in comfort and peace, because of the absurd and the antiquated view of the 763 law which had hitherto prevailed, that they must clear out at half-past twelve o'clock. One might have ladies or friends with one and want to get a little supper and not wish to get it when arriving home at one or two o'clock in the morning, and as the law was interpreted now the restaurants turned people out before they had finished their suppers. He did not know whether he was entitled to claim the credit from the Government of being the real author of this subsection. Some dispute arose about it, and the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge disclaimed any authorship, but he thought he had on the Paper a clause which was not reached—nothing was reached—empowering licensed restaurants to remain open for half an hour longer than they did at present. In his darkness then he supposed they had to close, but it was the spirit of that Amendment which was embodied in this clause, and he rejoiced accordingly. He would point out that although subsection (1) of the Government clause required that the meals should be taken in a room set apart for the purpose there was no such provision in subsection (2), and consequently anybody could obtain non-alcoholic refreshment at any hour of the day and night in a room not set apart from others. Subsection (2) therefore declared the law to be that people might take non-alcoholic, refreshment at any hour of the day or night, and there was no restriction as to any part of the building in which they could take it. He, for one, as a real temperance reformer, did not want to encourage facilities for bar drinking at any hour of the day or night, but he did want to reserve the right in a bona fide restaurant to finish a meal under circumstances of decency; and if the Government would insert a few words to make it clear that this right of the licensed, victualler to supply non-alcoholic refreshment in "closed" hours should be in a part set apart for ordinary restaurant purposes, he should raise no objection. In subsection (2) they spoke only of refreshment other than intoxicating liquors, and that might mean only refreshments in a liquid sense. He was not a lawyer, but he thought he might argue if he were that the section empowered a licensed person to supply refreshments other than intoxicating liquor but that the refresh- 764 ment must be in a liquid form, provided it was not intoxicating. He thought the intention was that people should obtain any reasonable refreshment after licensed hours. He considered it was a great deal that they had got this declaration, and he hoped the Government would not withdraw it. They had withdrawn quite enough. Let them be firm about something. This was a declaration which everyone using restaurants should be very glad to see. The law had been declared, and let them all understand it in future. The point of view upon which he desired to support the subsection was that people who went out to supper, as many of them did nowadays, should have an opportunity of enjoying their meals in peace and comfort. He had the honour of having a visitor from France. They had been enjoying their evening in the most reasonable, rational, and pleasant manner by listening to music. They had hardly sat down to supper when a vulgar voice said they must get out, at which his French friend expressed astonishment. They went to another portion of the premises where he took a bedroom, which he had not the slightest intention of using, and they partook of their meal in peace. The present practice did not inspire respect for the law, and he asked the Government to adhere to their declarations and show that in some respects they were alive to the requirements of the people who wished to enjoy the ordinary elements of liberty, at least, where their stomachs were concerned.
§ MR. YOUNGER
was understood to say that personally he was one of those who were committed to a modification of Sunday hours of opening as contained in the Majority Report of the Royal Commission, a position from which he did not recede in the slightest degree. Therefore, so far as this proposal gave effect to what was proposed in that Report and did not go beyond it, he had no remarks to offer. He suspected, however, as the clause would stand if the Solicitor-General's Amendments to other parts of the Bill were accepted, as he presumed they would be by this House, that it would be open to the justices to fix the three hours of opening in the country between twelve and three and not to allow the houses to open at all between six and ten. He was 765 perfectly certain that went outside the recommendations, the intention of which was that there should be one hour for the supply of dinner beer, and certain hours for the reasonable refreshment which people were in the habit of getting in the evening.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said the intention was for the justices to be allowed to fix two or three hours in the afternoon in special cases: for instance, in a watering-place, where it might be that there was no desire or necessity to open in the evening, the houses might be allowed to be open for more than two hours in the afternoon. That was the reason why it was made elastic in this way and left to the discretion of the justices.
§ MR. YOUNGER
said his suspicion appeared to be well founded. He thought in some sort of way people ought to be guarded against the abuse of that discretion by the justices. He thought there should be some evening as well as afternoon opening. As to leaving restaurants in the position in which they were now, he thought everyone would agree, provided the provision referred to the cheapest class of eating house as well as to the dearest class of restaurant, although naturally it would be more convenient for those who went to the better class of place, than for those who used not even a restaurant, but a public-house. Subject to that remark he had nothing to say about the first sub-section, except to agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke that he did not think the Court would find it quite so easy to decide what a man's mission was in a licensed house as the Prime Minister imagined. The hon. Member for Basingstoke had referred to the American sandwich, and he did not know whether the unfortunate person died who ate it; but there were in America numerous ways of evading the law as to intoxicants being sold only with a meal. The bona fide "meal" usually ordered in Boston was a hard-boiled egg. The licence-holder found it very profitable, because nobody ever ate it. It was generally charged for at 5 cents., or 2½d. and in one morning a barman had been known to sell this same egg at 5 cents, a 766 time to no fewer than fifty-seven customers. The clause as it stood was certainly open to abuse, and he thought it desirable that some sort of definition of what constituted a meal should be introduced, before this clause received its final shape. With regard to subsection (2) he rather thought it was a case of getting out of the frying pan into the fire. Under the words a publican was entitled to open during prohibited hours for the purpose of supplying refreshments other than intoxicating liquors. He had known cases in which publicans had been fined for doing that, and he was sure that the Licensing Commission never thought that from their recommendations such a thing could be possibly drawn. If the licensees did such things now, he thought the licensing justices would have something to say to them at the sessions. He was not going to ask the Government to withdraw this subsection. It was their business and not his, but it was open to the gravest possible abuse. It made police supervision extremely difficult, and would give encouragement to shebeening of all sorts, just the thing the Government were seeking to prevent. There were many ways of evading laws of this kind. He had heard of one station in America where, when the refreshment car of a train drew up at it, passengers might not have intoxicating liquors served to them, and when they ordered liquor it was served to them in a brown tea-pot. He considered this subsection would lead to that sort of thing, and he thought the Government were extremely in-advised in regard to their new clause. Subject to these few remarks he had nothing to say, except that he did not object to the shortening of the hours on Sunday.
§ * MR. S. COLLINS (Lambeth, Kennington)
said that he had felt in some difficulty to know whether he should support the clause or vote against it, and he would state his reasons. He had not the advantage of hearing the Solicitor-General's speech, as he was not in the House, but at the same time it appeared if they passed this subsection, it would go very much against the general spirit of what they had already done. They had been trying 767 to help the landlord and his servants and to curtail the hours, and this to a very large extent was going to tie the landlord and the barmaid and the other servants, to keep in the houses all day long on Sunday. He might be wrong, but if he could be enlightened on this point he would be very glad, as he did not want to vote against the Government. On the other hand, if they did not pass it he was in another difficulty. Like the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front Opposition bench just before, he was very glad that they had done all they could to help Sunday closing. Like the right hon. Gentleman he was a Sabbatarian and a temperance man, but he hoped he was liberal-minded enough to remember that there were a large number of persons who were not Sabbatarians and temperance people like himself and others in the House, who supported these facilities on Sunday. Of course, they deplored it, but they did not want to force their Sabbatarianism or their temperance on those who differed from them. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had referred to the temperance men generally as saying that drink was a wicked thing. They did not say that, but he would refer him to a very high authority, one of the wisest of men—he did not know if he was an abstainer—who, having had a life long experience, said—Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whoso is deceived thereby is not wise.He commended that to the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs; it was not the statement of a teetotaller. He did not want to be hard upon people travelling, or who were not Sabbatarians, or on those who went to a restaurant on Sunday, but he deplored the increasing tendency of this pleasure-loving age to break the Sabbath, not so much because it was breaking the Sabbath, as because of its tendency to deprive some people of enjoying the rest to which they were entitled. He deplored the fact on that ground, but still if people, wanted to do those things on Sunday, and to take refreshment, he did not, as a temperance man, feel called upon to say that they should be cut down to the three or four hours they had agreed upon in the case of alcoholic liquor. He 768 would be glad to be enlightened on these points.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)
said that this clause had been very severely attacked from various quarters of the House, and he would like to make a few observations upon it. The second subsection was said to be declaratory of the law, viz., that at any time of the day or night a licensed house could be opened for the sale of non-intoxicating drink, and the hon. Member for Appleby had made a strong appall to the Government to leave that out. He did not think that the hon. Member was as reasonable in that as in some of his requests. The Government had brought in a Licensing Bill including drastic measures in the way of Sunday closing, and it was essential to know on what basis they were starting. Did they think under this Bill that the public-houses would be able to keep open day and night for nonalcoholic refreshment? That was the basis of the Bill, and the Government had frankly let them into the secret, that they undertook this new Sunday closing because they considered that a man was now able to keep open all night for the purpose of supplying nonalcoholic refreshment, and that a man who wanted to get it at five o'clock on Sunday should be able to get it in a public-house. That was their intention, and they had been perfectly straightforward in stating to the House what their view of the law was and what it would be even if they left this clause out. What was the position? It was left in vagueness, and it came to this, that they were to "toss up" at the Law Courts after the views which they had heard expressed in the House. He did not put his views against those of the Solicitor-General, but he did think that it came to a "toss up" in the Law Courts as to what the proper course was. The Government had acted perfectly bravely in putting before the House what their view of the law was with regard to the sale of non-alcoholic refreshment in licensed houses during prohibited hours, and what they intended to do. It would be wrong, however, to leave out the subsection, as had been suggested, but if they had not changed their view of the law to what 769 the Government considered it to be, they ought to seek to amend the subsection by saying that public-houses should not be open during closing hours for the sale of non-alcoholic liquors. The hon. Member had no right to ask the Government to leave out this sub-clause. The Government had come out into the open and had bravely said that that was what the law was, and what they intended it to be, and for that reason it was most important to hold to this clause. He thought they were wrong in their view, and that the clause would be a dangerous change in the law. The great objection to this provision was the difficulty of police supervision. If a licensed house were entitled to be open for the sale of non-alcoholic liquors at any time, it would be very difficult indeed to detect whether intoxicants were being sold or not. He himself might be returning from a meeting at one o'clock in the morning, and, feeling thirsty, want a drink. With a travelling flask in his pocket he might go into a licensed house and buy a bottle of soda-water. He would put in some whisky from his flask, and drink the two together. A policeman inspecting that house might think they had sold the whisky. Again, it would create the anomaly that a licensed house might sell a cup of coffee at any hour, but an unlicensed refreshment-house could not. As to the first subsection, it was certainly necessary to have some such provision. It was necessary that the public should know what the law was on this particular point, and therefore it would not be proper to leave the subsection out altogether. The proper thing to do would be either to agree with it or, if they disagreed, to deal with it by way of Amendment. The first subsection, therefore, was perfectly necessary. After considering this Bill for eight months, the Government five minutes before the closure fell on the Sunday closing clause, included the whole of London, and by that sudden decision hit every restaurant in London; for what use would it be to those restaurants to open only from 12.30 to 1.30 and from 6 to 8 in the evening? It was pointed out that the injustice applied to many country and seaside places also, where people frequently, in order to save the labours of the servants in their lodgings, went to 770 dine in hotels. Therefore, as the clause was passed, it was distinctly unjust, and the Government in producing this new sub-clause did, perhaps, the best that it was in their power to do in the short time at their disposal. Nevertheless, he doubted whether the attempt which the Government had made was one of which to be proud. The matter required very careful consideration, and he could not help thinking that it had had very little. In particular, he questioned whether the phrases "a meal" and "a room set apart for the purpose" would stand critical legal examination. What a wonderful sub-clause it was! A person was entitled during the "closing" hours to be served with a meal in a room set apart for the purpose. When the Bill had been in operation for some years the publican would have to remember what the law was in 1908 before the Bill was passed, because it was only in those hours that a meal could be served in a room set apart for the purpose. What was a meal? That was a question he would deal with when that point was reached. Under the Bill the publican was entitled to supply a meal with intoxicating liquor in a room set apart. He had always advocated in his humble way alcohol with meals and not between meals, but he was not sanguine of people being converted by Act of Parliament. When it came to be put into an Act of Parliament it was a different thing. What was a room set apart for the purpose? In the cafes in the Strand and other places the bar was in the dining-room. Was that a room mainly set apart for the purpose of supplying food? Was the bar in cases like that to be closed? This obviously has not been thoroughly thought out, because first there was the critical difficulty of the meal, and secondly that of the room set apart The clause required much careful consideration for amendment and he wished that there was another Report stage to the Bill in order that the Government might reconsider the clause. If there were a second Report stage he would vote for subsection (1), because that idea was right, though the method of carrying out the idea was extremely faulty. The whole thing required very careful consideration and discussion by the 771 public. The clause should be sent round to the people affected, the hotel and restaurant proprietors and so forth, so that they might make comments and suggestions upon it. It was absoutely necessary that the Government should make a declaration of what the existing law was, and though he differed from them he thought it necessary that they should make a declaration.
§ * MR. SHERWELL (Huddersfield)
said he had listened closely to the greater part of the debate, and he confessed that one question had been uppermost in his mind as he listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Were they to understand that it was the considered and deliberate judgment of members of the Opposition that the provisions of the Bill without the new clauses under discussion were sufficient to meet the entire case of the Metropolis? The tendency of the debate so far, with the exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University, was that the restricted hours and restricted facilities under the Bill were sufficient to meet all the legitimate needs and requirements of London.
§ * MR. SHERWELL
said he had expressly excepted the hon. and learned Gentleman. He confessed that personally he could only congratulate the Government on introducing the clause, and he would divide the House if a proposal was made to withdraw it. The clause had his support, because it cleared up a certain ambiguity in the law as it now stood. He was not a lawyer, but during the last ten years he had studied these questions almost as closely as any lawyer, and it had always been his impression that the intention of the Government, as expressed in the clause, was the liberty allowed under the law as it stood, and he was confirmed in that impression by the testimony of some of the most expert legal advisers to licensing benches in the country. He believed that what had prevented the full exercise of the facilities in the past was the fear of jeopardising the 772 licence. That fear of jeopardising the tenure of a licence was on the whole perfectly wholesome, and had proved to be a very powerful instrument in the direction of progress and reform as utilised by certain licensing benches. He would not for one moment weaken the power exercised by that fear, but it ought to have clearly-defined limits. He never had approved of any policy or system of administration which harassed the unfortunate publican at every turn. So long as the licensed trade was recognised as legitimate or legal, so long did the licence-holder possess the right to a certain wholesome and justifiable liberty of action. The tendency of the opposite view always had been to degrade the trade and drive it into the least desirable hands. The fact that there was by common admission an uncertainty concerning the present law was in his judgment the best possible argument for the Government's clause. Objections had been urged against it, and certain fears had been expressed as to possible contingencies resulting from the adoption of the clause. He believed many of these objections had lost sight of the fact that the power given under the clause was a purely permissive power. No constraint was placed on the licensed victualler if he did not wish to open his premises for a particular purpose. With regard to the illustration of a flask of whisky being carried on to the premises, it seemed to him that in the judgment of any Court such a thing would be a most flagrant and deliberate attempt to evade the spirit and the letter of the law. He did not for a moment believe that hon. Members opposite in their moments of considered judgment would really think there was any substance in a fear of that kind. With reference to the non-definition of a meal, that would seem to cause a little misgiving in the light of experience, but he would remind hon. Members that that misgiving only had force against a condition of things that was not established in this particular proposal. The evasion of the law in New York which had been referred to was simply the result of an attempt to deny all facilities for the purchase of liquor. That was not the condition of things established under this Bill. If they carried out an 773 extreme prohibitionist policy, far in advance of average sentiment, they would always be liable to such evasions of the law, but where they allowed, as they did allow under this Bill, adequate facilities for the obtaining of legitimate refreshment, he did not think they need indulge in fears of that kind. He would like to define his own position with regard to these proposals. It was that everything which would give a wholesome liberty of action to the licensed victualler was to be regarded by that House and by all administrative authorities as a thing to be encouraged. He knew that on that side of the House differences of opinion would arise as to what constituted a wholesome liberty of action. If one held the view that the public-house was wholly an evil institution, then obviously his hon. friends below him were justified in giving a proposal of this kind unstinted opposition; but where one held that a public-house under proper conduct was a useful and legitimate social institution, then they were bound to allow the man whom they put in charge of that trade that liberty of action to which, in his judgment, he was entitled. The weakness inherent in so much legislation of this kind in the past had been due entirely to this, that it represented the effort of those who did not frequent the public-houses to restrict the liberty and habits of those who were accustomed to frequent them. So long as they made that the basic principle of licensing legislation, so long would they be disappointed in attaining the goal which they all desired. After all, the proposals in this clause were simply a reversion to the original, true, and historical intention of Parliament in licensing the public-house. They all deplored the fact of the degradation of the public-house from a place of convenience and social resort for the legitimate purposes of refreshment to the open, flaunting bar which prevailed at the present moment. Hon. Members would recollect that the Lords' Committee on Intemperance in 1879 laid special stress on that point and urged the encouragement of all arrangements that would restore the public-house to its original character and purpose. Moreover, he was personally confident that 774 some such clause as this was urgently required if their licensing arrangements were not to break down in London and in other large cities. The position of things that would certainly arise if this clause were not carried would become so intolerable as to threaten the security and the proper administration of the whole of our licensing system. He deplored the increasing tendency to advance too far beyond the level reached by the average civic opinion of our great cities. There was nothing that more imperilled the future achievement of substantial reform than the attempt precipitately to hasten the day. After all, the great strength of the temperance movement was not that which was represented by the enthusiasm of the ideals, noble as they were, of the advanced wing of the temperance party. There was a common desire amongst all sections of the community to get rid of the intolerable evils so often associated with the practical conduct of the liquor traffic. He was desirous that they should not do anything that would make for the alienation or for the ultimate estrangement of that great body of middle opinion in the country, and it was because he believed that the whole effect of this clause in its dual form would be healthy and wholesome, and that it would carry with it the great body of sincere conviction and sentiment in the country at large, that he most earnestly appealed to the Government not to give way on the point.
§ MR. MACLEAN (Bath)
said he had listened with great interest to the speech just delivered. He would call attention to the clause as they found it before them, and if his hon. friend thought the reform of the public-house hinged upon subsection (2) of the clause he must unhesitatingly differ from him. He associated himself with his hon. friend in his general views on temperance reform, but as regarded this particular contribution, he had come to the conclusion that it would lead rather far from the path of real reform if it were adopted. The proposition was that for the first time in the licensing history of this country the licensees should be definitely told that they had full permission, if not the invitation of 775 the Government, to conduct business on their premises after closing hours. That was a most curious position to take up, because, after all, they all knew it was a most difficult trade to administer. Let them take what happened in a great seaport town. Large clusters of public-houses were closed at closing time, and the licensees were very glad to get rid of the customers. If this clause passed, what would happen? These public-houses would be forced by competition to keep their houses open for hours after that. He was speaking of what he knew. The licensees themselves were most anxious that their business should be carried on during the hours already limited by Statute, but not that it should be carried on to all hours of the morning. They would have to open a fresh department of their business. They would have to provide for the refreshment of the night men and the drift and human wreckage of the streets, and he asked the most earnest consideration of the House to this practical position with which they were face to face. He was not concerned to go into the niceties of legal decisions one way or another. He knew that the practice, hitherto understood to be the law, was that the licensees had to finish business at closing time. Now they were invited by the Government to carry on and have their premises open after hours at which they had hitherto had to close. There were two classes in the country who would regard with the very gravest concern the passing of this subsection—the police, who would have to administer the law, and the majority of the licensed victuallers themselves. They desired to be protected against the difficulties of competition and the other things with which they had to contend. They were anxious to close their premises at their present hours. For his own part, he should be most regretfully compelled to vote against the Government if they insisted on carrying the subsection to a division, but he earnestly appealed to them, after the speeches which had been made on both sides, that they should see that the general sense of the House was against any alteration of the practice, whatever might be the technical law 776 on the point, with regard to the closing of licensed premises.
§ * MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)
said that, when this clause was foreshadowed by the Solicitor-General a fortnight ago, he understood it to be received with general approval from the Opposition benches, but now most of the hon. Members opposite had succeeded in dissembling their love. As soon as a clause was put on the Paper by the Government, then it was to be shot at. Then there were nervous individuals who were always afraid of some great injury happening to the world if the world were only allowed a little liberty. They were so wise, and everybody else was so silly that the world was sure to go wrong unless put into a straight waistcoat. He hailed this clause as a great temperance measure; he thought it was one of the best parts of the Bill. This was a clause which said that a person might get a meal in a public-house during the same hours as he could have got it in before the passing of the Bill, and he thought that that was a temperance measure. They could have a square meal or a round meal and a glass of beer with it without anybody being prosecuted for it. This was a great temperance measure, giving people the opportunity to live like reasonable beings. It encouraged self respect, led to a greater consumption of non-alcoholic liquors, and was not so restrictive in its provisions as to provoke a desire to evade the law. Here was a chance to get the five o'clock tea. It had been objected that this provision would cause Sunday labour but that was just what would not happen. If people got tea at a restaurant their own servants would have a Sunday out. Every one knew that where they had unduly restrictive legislation it led to an increase of shebeens; but in this provision they did not draw the law too tightly, so that people would not be forced outside of the law. Let them get everyone inside the law, and then they would all live happily together.
§ MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)
said the hon. Member who had just sat down apparently did not realise that this particular clause would open the door to 777 more evasion than any other clause of the Bill. If they were going to take credit for this clause as a great temperance measure, that was exactly what it would not be. They had heard a great deal of the United States and what went on there, and how easily the law was evaded. He had not the slightest doubt that if this clause were passed they would see an immense deal of evasion throughout the country, and drunkenness would largely increase. He could not help wondering just now, when he was getting a glass of milk and a bun at the refreshment bar, whether that would be considered a meal, for this Friday, as on last Friday, owing to the business pending in the House, that was all the meal he was able to get. The question had occurred to him whether under this provision he would have been allowed to have intoxicating liquor with his bun, if he had ordered it in a public-house. He had not the slightest idea whether it would have been permissible or not, and he would like to have that point elucidated. Supposing they came to the definition of a meal, he would like further to know at what point a meal became a meal, or at what point that which was partaken of as a meal ceased to be a meal, like his bun, for example, which was the only meal he had time to take in the circumstances in which he was placed. It was a point which ought to be dealt with and made clear in the clause. He failed to see how the subsections as they stood could possibly be worked unless they were altered. In opposing this clause they did not moan to say that there should be none at all, but the subsections as they stood were unworkable. The object of the Government, he took it, was to protect restaurants in London, and that object, so far laudable, was rendered necessary by the other provisions of this objectionable Bill. They ought to have had a proper consideration of this important provision, but he regretted to say that that was not possible under the conditions imposed on their discussion. They ought to have some better opportunity than this curtailed Report stage; as it was, they were obliged to take or leave this clause as it stood. That was the only alternative before the House. The guillotine fell at five o'clock, and as the provision was so entirely unworkable he should vote against it rather than accept it in its present form.
§ MR. SCOTT (Ashton-under-Lyne)
thought that the Government would be very well advised if they withdrew the second part of the clause. It was his privilege for a good many years to serve on the Manchester Watch Committee, and from the knowledge and experience which he had gained there he was of opinion that the admistration of the law under this clause would be an absolute failure. In one part of the city of Manchester there were a number of refreshment houses which had no licences. Under the present law these houses were compelled to close at a certain time. The Manchester Committee recognised that these houses were a great convenience to the people, and, therefore, did not put the law into operation but allowed them to remain open considerably later than the public-houses. But they became the resort of the most undesirable people in the town, and eventually the Watch Committee had to take action and compel those refreshment houses to close at the same time as the public-houses. But what did this clause say? He supposed it would be quite possible under it for two individuals to go into a restaurant at a quarter to eleven and order a magnum of champagne. As soon as the clock struck eleven were they to put what remained away? They might not have the same capacity as some hon. Members of that House. Had they at eleven o'clock to destroy the wine unconsumed? Or would it be possible, if they continued to drink at five minutes after eleven, for a policeman to go in and say that they were not allowed to supply drink after eleven o'clock, and yet there were people there drinking wine after that hour? Where a grocer had a licence, even in the Christmas season he was obliged to shut up his shop at eleven o'clock, while his competitors who had no licence continued to keep open. These alterations of the law opened up a very wide question, he did not know whether the Government realised how wide. It was an alteration that it would be impossible for the police to administer, and instead of its being a temperance reform it would have entirely the reverse effect.
§ MR. RICHARDSON (Nottingham, S.)
said it was desirable to consider what would be the effect of this clause upon the hours of barmen and barmaids 779 and other employees in public-houses. Last week the case of the barmen and others was put before him with a view to his doing everything possible to assist them in relation to the hours they had to work. The barman who put the facts before him had given him certain figures as to the hours they at present worked, and he asked the Government to consider what would be the effect of this provision extending the facilities for obtaining refreshments. It appeared to the employees that it must have the result of increasing their hours of labour. At the present time the barman worked from six in the morning until eleven at night, five days a week. On Wednesdays he left at one o'clock, having half a day off; he had one hour for dinner, half an hour for breakfast, and half an hour for tea. On Sundays he was at work from six until ten in the morning, "squaring things up." Then he was on duty again from 12.30 to 2.30, and again in the evening from six until 10.30. He had only to place these facts before the House to justify his asking, in the interests of these employees in public-houses, whether the Government could not see their way to withdrawing this provision Though he was not speaking in the name of the Labour Party, he thought in what he said he had largely their sympathy.
§ MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)
said it did not matter in the least whether the subsection was approved or disapproved, because as a matter of fact it did not alter the law. It was a declaratory section, and both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General stated that it set forth what the law was. If the subsection remained everyone would then know what the law was, but if it were withdrawn it would leave things in a chaotic state compared with what they were before.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
said the opinion of the Prime Minister came as a great surprise when a fortnight ago he told them what he thought was the law in this matter. Everybody up till then had thought that when a licensed house was closed it was closed for all purposes. The section of the Act of 1874 said—All premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold by retail, etc., shall be closed.780 He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned friend the Member for Cambridge University in his view of the law against that of the Prime Minister and Solicitor-General. At all events it had been taken to be the law by the trade generally, and for this reason, that it was a great risk for the publican to keep his house open. If he kept his doors open any person could go into the house, and it would be very difficult to refuse to serve him if he asked to be served. A case had been heard at Keighley the other day before an hon. Member of the House. He was not sure whether it was the hon. Member for Skipton who was on the bench; at all events it was someone of the same name. In that case it appeared that a teetotaler was prosecuted for being in a public house and I getting teetotal refreshments during prohibited hours, and he was convicted. That showed what the opinion of the magistrates was as to the law, and it was the view generally taken. He agreed with the view that the present law as administered was acting extremely well, and he joined with the hon. Member below the gangway in urging the Government to consider the hours which the employees in public-houses had already to work. It would be very hard upon them if they became liable to be called upon at any time in the twenty-four hours to serve people with refreshments. He thought the present hours for public-houses were satisfactory both for Sundays and week-days. They were perfectly content to rest on the present law with regard to closing hours. He would like to ask one question on the construction of the clause.Nothing in the Licensing Acts with respect to closing hours shall prevent,etc. Was it the intention of the Government to over-ride all the licensing law at present existing, and, if it was, what were they going to do in the case of new licences where the condition had been laid down that there should be no Sunday opening? Were six-day licensees to be allowed to open on the seventh day? The Solicitor-General shook his head, but the words of the clause were liable to misconstruction and he would advise that some words be put in to make that point clear. He thought it most desirable, too, to have some definition of a meal. The case was sure to be raised in 781 the Courts in the absence of such a definition. The provision would be liable to great evasion, for a publican could set apart a tiny room, put a few biscuits and cheese on the table, and a man could come in and say he was having a meal and require liquor to be supplied to him. Although he thought some provisions of the kind were necessary, yet those provisions were badly drawn and ill-considered.
§ * MR. HELME (Lancashire, Lancaster)
said the concessions the Government had made the other day in further restricting the hours for the sale of intoxicants in London had been received by the Press with great satisfaction, and he thought the Government had done right in bringing in this subsection (1) to carry out the statement of the Prime Minister that duo regard should be had to those who required food in a restaurant, especially in London. But with regard to subsection (2) he appealed to the Government to withdraw it because through that declaration they were going against that public opinion which desired to restrict Sunday trading, and it would be difficult to carry out strict supervision by the police of public-houses in country places where far removed from the oversight of those officially concerned people might gather, and in many cases the risk was too great, that drink might be supplied when it ought not. He hoped the Government would withdraw the clause and so avoid the opening of public-houses throughout the country during hours on which they had hitherto always been understood to be closed.
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)
said that the difficulty in which the House found itself would not be solved by the withdrawal of the clause. The real trouble arose some days ago when the Prime Minister declared the law to be as it was laid down in the clause. He was not going to dispute any question of law with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but putting aside all question of what the law was, he was sure that the practice had been that all licensed houses had been closed and required to be closed during closing hours. They had been told officially that the law was the other way the other day, and since a grave doubt had arisen in many minds it must be solved by a clause stating the law one 782 way or the other. Personally, he would rather state it in a contrary sense to what was laid down in subsection (2). To allow a public-house when it was closed for the purpose of selling drinks to remain open all night if need be for the purpose of selling food invited evasion of the law and created hardships not only to the persons employed but to the police who had to watch the conduct of the house. From every point of view he should support the law if laid down the other way, and therefore he could not vote for this clause. But it was no use merely to withdraw the clause Whatever the law was it ought to be declared by the Government.
§ MR. HAROLD COX (Preston)
would certainly support the Government if they went to a division, because he believed that their intentions were more than usually good. At the same time, he did not quite see how either of the clauses was to be enforced. During the summer he spent a few days at Gotheuberg with some Swe[...]ish friends, and one evening, about ten or eleven o'clock, they went to an open air café, and ordered drinks. The waiter produced a tiny plate of tiny sandwiches for each person. He asked what they were for, and his friends said, "That is the law. We cannot have a drink at this time of night without having a meal also, and this is the meal." Of course they gave it to the birds. They had to pay for it, but it only cost 3d. for the whole party. That was a very simple evasion which could be put into operation here as regarded the first part of the clause. With regard to the second part, there would also be evasion. Reference had been made to a man who went into a public-house after closing time with his own bottle of whisky and asked for a sandwich and soda-water. He would not be breaking the law according to this clause. But supposing one of his hon. friends, the hon. Member for Lincoln, for instance, found his flask empty late at night and went into a public-house and ordered his sandwiches, and while they were being brought his flask was surreptitiously filled by the publican. If a policeman entered and challenged him, out of goodness of heart, wishing to relieve the publican from the chance of having his licence suspended, he would naturally say that it was his whisky which he had brought into the house. 783 There was such a tremendous possibility of evasion under both these subsections that though the intention was excellent it was absolutely imperative to have some Amendment to make the clause workable.
§ MR. FELL (Great Yarmouth)
said that as he was going home the other night about a quarter to one from the House—he thought it was still sitting—he saw in front of him a policeman at a public-house corner, who tried each of the doors of the public-house, and having satisfied himself that they were securely closed went on. If this clause had been passed, and he had found the doors open, he supposed he would have had to go inside to make inquiry and look round all the rooms to see whether there was anybody taking any refreshment and whether he was drinking. According to the old French proverb, a door must be either open or shut. It was equally true that a public-house must be either open or shut. They were recommended not long ago to ask a policeman what was the law. If they asked any policeman, he would say it would be impossible for him ever to search or go his rounds in a reasonable time, if he had to do more than ascertain that the public-houses were closed. They were going to turn public-houses into three classes—coffee taverns, refreshment bars and refreshment rooms, and ordinary licensed victuallers houses, and they had different powers and different rights for the people who were there. People having lunch in a public-house on Sundays would be told at a certain time that they might finish their food, but must not drink any more. It was too preposterous for reasonable men to suggest that such a thing would be carried out. A person having a meal would be able to have liquor, but if he had a friend waiting for him who was not having a meal he would have to have temperance drink or go without. Was it reasonable that public-houses should be converted into these three kinds of refreshment premises? Would the Minister in charge explain what was the real position of the Government in regard to these premises, and whether during the closing hours they were still open for the purpose of obtaining food and refreshment? There was doubt about it, and the House should be advised authoritatively what was the opinion of the Government.
§ SIR S. EVANS
said that the question upon which they were about to divide was whether or not this clause was to be read a second time. Upon that matter the Government certainly would vote for the Second Reading and ask the House to follow it. For debating purposes the clause was divisible into two, but not for the purposes of the division lobby. With regard to the second subsection, speaking personally, he did not mind much what happened to it. He had not changed his mind. He had never cared for it. It was not his. He was invited to declare what the law was, and he declared that the law was in the sense stated by the Prime Minister. When the matter was discussed he was reported to have said in Hansard, and very likely he did—Whatever the meaning was under the Acts of 1872 and 1874 they had not changed it at all. In his opinion there was nothing in the licensing laws which prevented houses from opening for other purposes than the supply of intoxicating liquor and there had been no change in the law and it had been in operation since 1872. Personally he had no objection to putting in a declaratory section although he thought it would be better not to change the law but only to make it clear.That was the situation so far as they were concerned ever since that time. They did not propose to and would not change the law. It appeared that there was a difference of opinion as to whether the law was properly declared in this section. But what would happen, supposing the subsection did not become part of this clause by reason of something done at a later stage, would be that the Courts of law would have to decide what the law had been since the year 1874. There was this advantage that whoever was called upon to argue the case would be absolutely precluded in the Courts of law from referring either to the opinion of the Prime Minister or to that of himself. But whatever was to happen to the second sub-clause, he thought perhaps after the very interesting debate, to every word of which he had listened, they might now take the division on the Second Reading.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)
thought the whole House would feel that they were left in a most extraordinary position after the speech of the Solicitor-General, following upon the debate which had lasted nearly four 785 hours. One of the five days occupied by the Report stage had been spent in discussing a new clause which the Government asserted was only declaratory, which most of their followers thought practically altered the law if it did not legally alter it, and on which there had been more hostile criticism directed from every part of the House than even this controversial and most unfortunate Bill had aroused at any other stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a review of the attitude of the Government on the second subsection of the clause. He said that the Prime Minister a few days ago gave his view of what the law actually was with regard to supplying non - alcoholic refreshment in public-houses. He went on to say he confirmed the view of the law taken by the Prime Minister. That was what a Law Officer always ought to do, and he congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman on having thoroughly justified his position in the Government.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said he would not quarrel as to the theory and the practice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Let the House observe what the result of this had been. The learned Gentleman now said he was perfectly indifferent to the fate of subsection (2), and if it was rejected he indicated to the House his opinion that after all matters would be as they were. Matters would not be as they were, and they never again could be as they were. Things had got far beyond that. It was perfectly true that, if this subject ever came before the Courts of law, neither the Prime Minister's opinion nor that of the Solicitor-General nor that of any Member of that House could be urged before the tribunal. But was it not equally true that the magistrates who had to deal with the renewal of licences, and the police who, had to deal with the actual supervision of public-houses, could never again after the debate that had taken place in the House, and after the Amendment put down by the Government, look at the problem before them with the same eyes with which they had looked upon it before? An hon. Gentleman had pointed out that what really would prevent the abuse of the liberty given by the second subsection was the fear of the interpretation that would 786 be put upon his conduct by the licensing justices. There was one point on which he wholly agreed with the hon. Member for Huddersfield. He had said it was not fair to harass the publicans by leaving in doubt what they might do and what they might not do. They ought to make them work under perfectly plain and unmistakable directions. They ought to decide what exactly was lawful and what was unlawful for them to do. Hitherto the existing system had worked, because magistrates, policemen, licence-holders, and the public generally were all of one mind as to what the law was. The actual people who administered the laws, who ran and used public-houses, were all of one mind that a public-house could not be open after it became illegal to sell intoxicating liquors. As that was the universal practical system at work, there was no legal ambiguity which the licence-holder suffered. What was going to be his position after this debate? Every public-house throughout the country would have to reconsider its position as to what it was to do after the hours when it was no longer legal to sell intoxicating drinks. Some would come to one decision, some to another, as to their proper course. Those who thought that the circumstances of competition or the hope of profit made it desirable to keep their place open would always have before them the fear that the old practice of policemen and magistrates would still obtain, and they would be harassed and persecuted by those whose business it was to administer the law. If, on the other hand, the magistrates and police, after reading this debate, were convinced by the admirable legal arguments of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General, they would say it was quite clear that the public house might open, and they would have to give directions to the police everywhere to go into the houses after the hours of closing and to see that those who were eating sandwiches were not taking liquor obtained from the public-house. They had had a great deal of biography and autobiography in the debate. The Member for York had told the history of an imaginary Sunday. He went into a restaurant at 12 o'clock, and discussed politics with the lady behind the bar; he had luncheon at 2 o'clock, and afterwards began to drink; then he had a meal at 6 o'clock, and so on until the small hours of the morning. 787 The hon. Member for Preston had given a biography of the Member for Lincoln—the cruellest cut of all. He presented a picture of the hon. Member going into a public-house with an empty flask, getting it surreptitiously filled by the publican, and then, in an access of mendacious generosity, denying to the policeman that he had done anything illegal. He did not propose to draw a picture, imaginary or otherwise, of his own career, but he would point out that he did not think it possible for them to get out of this difficulty merely by the Government withdrawing a subsection or allowing themselves to be beaten on a subsection; they must do something to make clear in the future the law which they had made practically ambiguous. Of course, they were discussing this difficult question in almost impossible conditions. As one hon. Gentleman naively remarked there was not a second Report stage. But it would be possible for the Government to withdraw this clause altogether and to recommit the Bill for the purpose of introducing a clause on this subject, in which they would deal with the difficulty for which they themselves were more or less personally responsible. They could not leave it where it was. The Government should recommit the Bill, not, of course, generally, but for the purpose of reintroducing another clause, dealing with the admitted deficiencies, making the law perfectly clear as regarded subsection (2), and making it rational and workable as regarded subsection (1). He earnestly pressed that upon the Government, but as far as the clause itself was concerned it was quite impossible that he should vote for it.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been entirely devoted, not to that part of the clause which made a change in the law (which, of course, was the important part of it), but to that part which professed to declare the law as it already existed. He thought it would have been more logical if the right hon. Gentleman had suggested some reason why the House should vote against that part of the clause which really did alter the existing law. As regarded the declaratory subsection, he was afraid he was himself really the fountain of all the mischief, because in an imprudent moment he ventured to say what he thought was the existing law of 788 the land upon this subject. It was not necessary for him to do so, and he very much regretted that he did. He should take a lesson from what had been said in the debate and speak with more reserve in the future. But the view of the law which he ventured as a mere obiter dictum to enunciate, was supported by the much greater authority of the Solicitor-General, and he did not think it had been seriously challenged by any one who had taken part in the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston, who was a great authority in those matters, thought a law ought to be enacted in the opposite sense, but he did not understand him to say that this declaration was a misconception or perversion of the law as it existed.
§ MR. ASQUITH
said his hon. and learned friend gave a charming example of the modesty which he always believed really characterised the legal profession. But if he attributed his modesty on this occasion not to an unusual or abnormal access of diffidence but rather to a feeling that he could not seriously contest the legal proposition laid down by his hon. and learned friend he did not think he would be going far wrong. But he would tell the House quite frankly he believed that this subsection declared the law as it was. If that was so, it was quite open to the argument that it was unnecessary, because the Courts would put that interpretation upon the law, and indeed had put it in the only case that had ever been tested. But in response to the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Member for Kingston that they should actually recommit the Bill in order that they should declare that the law was not what it had always been understood to be and what the Courts of Law had interpreted it to bo—that was a very unusual and a very unreasonable demand. But in coming to a decision on this clause he said quite plainly that, as far as the Government was concerned, the important feature in this clause was the change in the law and not the declaration which was embodied in the clause. He should be quite ready, if the House would assent to the Second Reading of the clause and therefore assent to that 789 change, in deference to a general opinion—if there were a general opinion—to omit any reference to the law as it actually was, and to allow the Courts to go on in the future as they had done in the past interpreting the existing Acts He hoped the House would now be willing to come to a decision upon the Second Reading of this clause.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)
said that the Solicitor-General, in a previous debate, replying to a Question put by the hon. Member for the West Derby division of Liverpool, made one of the most unfortunate statements in the cause of temperance that had been made in the House for many years. What was the position of the Government? What the exact legal definition of the law might be he did not care, but in every district throughout the United Kingdom the practice had been that when intoxicating liquors could not be sold no refreshments could be sold in licensed houses at any hour during closing time. That had been the law as carried out in every town in the United Kingdom, and that had been the general interpretation placed upon the law. It was no use the Prime Minister saying he was willing to withdraw the clause in deference to the general wishes of the House. [Cries of "Divide."] It was no use hon. Members interrupting him, because he should not sit down until he had said what he intended to say. It was the duty of the Government to put in a clause making it illegal to sell refreshments at any time when the licensed premises were closed. If the Government were anxious to promote temperance on Sunday their duty was not to put in a declaratory statement of the dictum of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General, but to insert a clause providing that the opening of licensed premises on Sunday when liquor was not allowed to be sold was illegal. This so-called declaratory clause was one which would alter the law in every district in England, and it was proposed by a Government which professed to have brought forward this Bill in the cause of temperance. If the law was as the Prime Minister said at present, why should this declaratory clause be passed? What would be the meaning of the clause as carried out in practiced? Assuming that there were twenty or thirty licensed houses in a locality, and 790 supposing that there were people in each of these houses drinking ginger ale, was a policeman to go round and taste every glass to make sure that it was not brandy or some similarly coloured alcoholic drink? How would it be possible to enforce the law when policemen could not be in all the public-houses at the same time? The so-called declaratory clause was an invitation to the trade to keep open their houses on Sunday at all times for the purpose, not of supplying legitimate refreshments, but of selling liquor. For his part, he refused to accept the statement of the law as laid down by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General. He remembered when the last Licensing Bill was under discussion in the last Parliament Sir Robert Finlay, who was then Attorney-General, one of the University members, the late Sir John Lawson Walton, and the present Lord Chancellor, held diametrically opposite views on the construction and reading of the clause which had brought about the Kennedy judgment. They had then two learned lawyers on both sides of the House holding different views, and the meaning of the Act had to be declared by the Court. If this was a temperance measure it was absolutely necessary that the Prime Minister, after making this unfortunate statement, should so alter the law as to make it in accordance with what had been the universal practice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had stated that this declaratory clause would inevitably work harm all over the country. If this was a Licensing Bill, why should not the Government have the courage of their convictions? Why did they not bring in a clause to make the law quite clear without being dependent on the dictum of any lawyer in the House? He considered the Bill one to facilitate Sunday drinking in public-houses and clubs. He would vote against this clause, and against the Third Reading of the Bill.
§ * COLONEL WALKER (Lancashire, Widnes)
, said he would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General to the law in relation to refreshment houses which sold non-intoxicating liquors. These little shops had to be closed during the same hours as public-houses. These refreshment houses could not be kept open to sell lemonade when public-houses were closed. The police regulations provided that 791 licensed refreshment house keepers opening or keeping open refreshment houses, or selling, or exposing for sale, in such houses, any refreshment, or any article whatever, during the time the premises licensed for the sale of non-intoxicating liquors were required to be closed, were liable to a penalty. He submitted that the dictum which had gone forth from the Prime Minister would be very
§ dangerous to members of the trade, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say across the floor of the House that he had committed an error of judgment, and then the thing would come to an end.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 377.)793
|Alden, Percy||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Menzies, Walter|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Fuller, John Michael F.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Mond, A.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Gill, A. H.||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Barker, Sir John||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Glendinning, R. G.||Morse, L. L.|
|Barnard, E. B.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Barnes, G. N.||Grant, Corrie||Murray, Capt. Hn. A C. (Kincard.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Gulland, John W.||Myer, Horatio|
|Beauchamp, E.||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Napier, T. B.|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Bennett, E. N.||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||O'Grady, J.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hart-Davies, T.||Paul, Herbert|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Brace, William||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Branch, James||Hazleton, Richard||Pollard, Dr.|
|Brooke, Stopford||Hedges, A. Paget||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Helme, Norval Watson||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Radford, G. H.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Higham, John Sharp||Rees, J. D.|
|Cameron, Robert||Hogan, Michael||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Holland, Sir William Henry||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Horniman, Emslie John||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Clough, William||Hudson, Walter||Roberston, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Hyde, Clarendon||Robinson, S.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Jackson, R. S.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Rose, Charles Day|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Jardine, Sir J.||Rowlands, J.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jenkins, J.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Cox, Harold||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Crooks, William||Jowett, F. W.||Sears, J. E.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||Kekewich, Sir George||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Curran, Peter Francis||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Laidlaw, Robert||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Lambert, George||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Lehmann, R. C.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lupton, Arnold||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Lynch, H. B.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Erskine, David C.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Essex, R. W.||Maclean, Donald||Summerbell, T.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||M'Crae, Sir George||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Mallet, Charles E.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Findlay, Alexander||Marnham, F. J.||Toulmin, George|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Ure, Alexander|
|Verney, F. W.||White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Whitehead, Rowland||Winfrey, R.|
|Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Wardle, George J.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Williamson, A.|
|Watt, Henry A.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Gretton, John||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hamilton, Marquess of||Renton, Leslie|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesaill)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winch'ster)||Heaton, John Henniker||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hunt, Rowland||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. H. M.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Kimber, Sir Henry||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cave George||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Snowden, P.|
|Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Stanier, Beville|
|Ceeil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Starkey, John R.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos, H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cross, Alexander||Magnus, Sir Philip||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Young, Samuel|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Nolan, Joseph||Younger, George|
|Fell, Arthur||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
§ *MR. LUTTRELL moved to omit subsection (1) of the new clause. His contention was that the object of the Bill, so far as Sunday closing was concerned, was to restrict the hours during which intoxicating liquors could be supplied on licensed premises. He believed that with the approval of almost the whole of the Members on the Ministerial side, and a large proportion of Members on the other side, it had been agreed to restrict the hours of opening from six to three in the country and from seven to four in London. If this clause was retained, it would render almost nugatory all that had been done. They would then have licensed premises open on Sunday, not for three hours only, but practically for six hours of the day. On temperance grounds, and out of consideration for the people employed in these licensed premises, he objected to the clause, believing that if passed it would do very great harm. He believed that the temperance party and the country generally had accepted with pleasure the proposal of the Govern- 794 ment to limit the hours from six to three, and they greatly regretted the extension. Whatever the lawyers might say, all practical people would agree that it would have the effect of allowing drinking to take place upon licensed premises for not only three hours on Sunday, but for six hours. They knew how difficult it was to set apart one room for meals accompanied by drinking. This was a clause which ought to be opposed by all those who were in favour of seeing a temperance measure carried out in a practical manner.
§ SIR FRANCIS CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)
said he seconded the Amendment for the simple reason that the introduction of the provision as to the allocation of a special room for meals was open to the transparent evasion of the raw. The Government were proposing to take away with one hand what they had given with the other, particularly as legarded Sunday closing in London. He thought that four hours were amply sufficient to cover all the wants of the hotels and restaurants in London.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
To leave out subsection (1)."—(Mr. Luttrell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'Sunday,' line 4, stand part of the clause"
§ SIR S. EVANS
said he believed that his hon. friend who had moved the Amendment would admit that this matter had been fully discussed, and that it was not necessary for him to repeat what he had already said. The law, so far as the consumption of intoxicating liquor with meals was concerned, would hereafter remain exactly as it now was. The Government thought the clause was reasonable and was not open to the objections that had been taken to it. It was not, in their opinion, unfair nor unjust, nor against the true interests of temperance to allow intoxicating liquors to be supplied with meals in the way proposed.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said the Amendment put him in a position of considerable difficulty. He did not think that anyone who had read the subsection could imagine that it was a satisfactory subsection to stand in any Act of Parliament. The clause was an exceedingly good object lesson of the vice of the whole legislation of the Government on this subject. They saw an evil, and they brought in a Bill to remedy it, which was ridiculously out of proportion to the evil. An injustice was in this case pointed out to them; they attempted to remedy it and in so doing destroyed the whole effect of the legislation they proposed. He thought that hon. Members who looked into this matter would discover three great blots in the legislation proposed by the Government. In the first place they attempted greatly to restrict the hours of Sunday opening in London to meet an evil which, so far as it existed, was not in proportion to the drastic remedy they proposed. It was pointed out to them that it would be impossible to obtain meals in ordinary eating houses in London on Sundays under these conditions; and when they were faced with that, the Government proposed this clause to exempt eating houses from their Sunday closing regulations, but the clause was extremely ill designed for the purpose. The time when the houses might be open was not clearly defined. It was made to depend on the state of the law which 796 existed before the passing of the Bill There was no reason why the Government should not have stated the hours that were to be applied to eating houses in London as to the other parts of the country.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that thirty lines of print would not have ruined the country, and would have saved the hotel proprietors and publicans a great deal from a business point of view. The second blot was in the phrase "taking a meal." He thought that, after the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, nobody would find that that was a good test of deciding what was an ordinary eating-house as opposed to an ordinary public-house. At any rate that test as applied in Sweden was absolutely futile and ridiculous. How could it be said what amounted to a meal? What was a meal to a working man was very different from what was a meal to a millionaire. A piece of bread and cheese might be an excellent meal for a working man, but might not be a meal to some hon. Members. A man might give an order for a few sandwiches, and that might be regard as "taking a meal," in order to obtain as much intoxicating liquor as he wished. The third blot on the clause was, what was a room set apart for the purpose of taking a meal? These three blots would make the clause in effect absolutely unworkable. He approved of the object of the Government, which was not to enforce Sunday closing in ordinary eating houses and restaurants, but he was afraid he could not vote for the clause, while he did not see his way to vote against it. He very much regretted that the conditions under which the Bill had been discussed made it impossible for hon. Members to say whether they would vote "aye" or "no." That was a position in which they ought not to be put, but under the circumstances it seemed to be impossible for them to vote either way. The House had good reason to complain of the manner in which the Government had misconducted this Bill.
§ * MR. FINDLAY (Lanarkshire, N.E.)
said that the whole situation was puzzling. In Scotland, where they had total Sunday closing, there was no question of keeping open eating-houses at any hours. He understood that the clause was especially 797 intended to protect the keepers of restaurants in London, but it applied to the whole country, and it seemed to him to be a very dangerous clause, because it would not restrict but extend the hours during which drinking might take place on Sundays. In his opinion what was wanted was a higher ideal of home life on Sunday. Sunday was a day for rest and worship, and he would certainly vote for the Amendment, as he did not wish to see the hours of Sunday opening extended.
§ * SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs)
said that before he voted for the Amendment he would like a clear understanding of what he was voting for or against. In the early stages of the Bill he had voted with the Government, because he understood that their proposal was to reduce the hours of opening public-houses on Sunday. He would like to know whether, if this new clause was passed, there would be three divisions of time for public-houses on Sunday—a time when liquor could be supplied; a time when liquor could be supplied with food; and a time when only food could be supplied, but when it would be open to any British subject to enter a public-house with whisky in his pocket, and obtain a bottle of soda water to add to the whisky and drink it there. The exposition of the law by the Prime Minister amounted to a deliberate invitation to the publican to keep his house open as long as he could reasonably do so for the convenience of the public. He understood that there might be a difference of opinion as to the application of the law under the first subsection, and therefore, if that was a correct deduction from the speeches made by lawyers in the House, as a member of a temperance society he could not support the clause, which tended towards violating the sanctity of the Sabbath, and would vote for the Amendment.
§ MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)
said that the House seemed to forget what the people of London had to say on the matter. The House of Commons was supposed to be a representative assembly, but they all knew that if the question was put to a popular vote there would be a majority of nine to one in favour of the extension of hours on Sunday. Therefore, be would vote for the clause.
§ Amendment negatived.798
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved to leave out the word "Sunday," and to insert the words "week-days." It would, he said, be admitted that under the subsection of the clause under discussion a house might be open on Saturday and the whole of Sunday for the sale of refreshments. If that were so, why should not the house be open on Sunday for the supply of liquor to persons who wished to take a meal during the whole of the time that a public-house might be open on week days? The House would remember that in the country the hours during which a public-house could be open now were, in the middle of the day, from 12.30 to 2.30, and in the evening from 8 to 10; and in London from 1 to 3 during the day, and in the evening from 6 to 11. But these hours were to be very restricted henceforth. What he contended was that these hours were not reasonable hours for a person who wanted to take a meal. A person ought to be able to take a meal at any hour of the day, and to have refreshments supplied to him with his meal if he wanted them. Therefore, he submitted that his Amendment was a very reasonable one, and should be accepted. Anyone coming to London on a Sunday ought to be able to get liquor at any hour he liked; but under this Bill he would have to recollect at what hour he would be able to get a drink. Why should he not be able to get a glass of beer at twelve o'clock instead of having to wait until half-past twelve before being served?
§ SIR F. BANBURY
seconded the Amendment, because he believed that the restriction of Sunday opening should never have been extended to London, and the Amendment would go in some small measures to minimise the evil which would be caused by the clause as it stood. London was an entirely different place from any other town or city in the country, and that was the reason why there was such an enormous number of hotels which were used by people coming from foreign countries. It was perfectly well known that in every foreign country people might have their meals in restaurants or hotels at any time of the day, and he believed that a great blow would be inflicted on the prosperity of London if foreigners could not go to any restaurant or hotel—say to the Ritz, or to the Carlton, on which enormous 799 sums of money had been spent—in the same way that they were accustomed to do in their own country, and get liquor, either with or without a meal.
§ And, it being Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th July, to800
§ put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the clause under consideration.
§ Question put, "That the added to the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 205; Noes, 88. (Division last No. 378.)801
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Grant, Corrie||Morrell, Philip|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morse, L. L.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Barnard, E. B.||Gulland, John W.||Murray, Cap. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Si W. Brampton||Myer, Horatio|
|Beale, W. P.||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Napier, T. B.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Ro'sendale||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np'rt)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)|
|Bennett, E. N.||Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||O'Grady, J.|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness'sh)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd)||Hart-Davies, T.||Paul, Herbert|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harwood, George||Paulton, James Mellor|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)|
|Brace, William||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Perks, Sir Robert William|
|Branch, James||Hedges, A. Paget||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Helme, Norval Watson||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Brooke, Stopford||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Pollard, Dr.|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Pullar, Sir Robert|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Higham, John Sharp||Radford, G. H.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hogan, Michael||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Holland, Sir William Henry||Rees, J. D.|
|Cameron, Robert||Horniman, Emslie John||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Hudson, Walter||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Clough, William||Hyde, Clarendon||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd)|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Illingworth, Percy H.||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)||Jackson, R. S.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Rose, Charles Day|
|Cooper, G. J.||Jardine, Sir J.||Rowlands, J.|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Jenkins, J.||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Crooks, William||Kekewich, Sir George||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Crosfield, A. H.||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne.|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Laidlaw, Robert||Sears, J. E.|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Lambert, George||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Lehmann, R. C.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Duckworth, Jir James||Lupton, Arnold||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, H. B.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Erskine, David C.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Essex, R. W.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Maclean, Donald||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||M'Crae, Sir George||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Everett, R. Lacey||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||M'Micking, Major G.||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Mallet, Charles E.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Findlay, Alexander||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Marnham, F. J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Menzies, Walter||Toulmin, George|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Micklem, Nathaniel||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Molteno, Percy Alport||Ure, Alexander|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Mond, A.||Verney, F. W.|
|Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Wardle, George J.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.||Winfrey, R.|
|Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackma'nan)||Wiles, Thomas||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Waterlow, D. S.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Watt, Henry A.||Williamson, A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Whitehead, Rowland||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston)||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
|Balcarres, Lord||Hamilton, Marquess of||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond)||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Baring, Cap. Hn. G. (Winch'ster)||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Renton, Leslie|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Hazleton, Richard||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Heaton, John Henniker||Robinson, S.|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Hills, J. W.||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cave, George||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Joynson-Hicks, William||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Starkey, John R.|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff 'sh.)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Talbot, R. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Cross, Alexander||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Magnus, Sir Philip||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Young, Samuel|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Younger, George|
|Fletcher, J. S.||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Nield, Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Forster.|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Nolan, Joseph|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Gretton, John||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
§ MR. SPEAKER
then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on the new Clause and the Amendments moved by the Government of which Notice had been given which were necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded this day, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th November.
(1) When a poll for a Parliamentary election takes place in any constituency, no person shall, during the hours of poll, sell or expose for sale any intoxicating liquor in any licensed premises except to persons lodging on the premises, and to persons taking meals on
the premises in a room set apart for the purpose, and in the case of railway refreshment rooms at a station, to persons arriving at or departing from the station by rail, and subject to those exceptions, no person shall during those hours be on any licensed premises for the purposes of obtaining or consuming intoxicating liquor. (2) If any person acts in contravention of this provision he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds."—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Question put, "That the clause be added to the Bill."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 78. (Division List No. 379.)805
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)||Bryce, J. Annan|
|Baker Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bennett, E. N.||Burns, Rt. Hon. John|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd||Byles, William Pollard|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Black, Arthur W.||Cameron, Robert|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Bowerman, C. W.||Channing, Sir Francis Allston|
|Barnard, E. B.||Brace, William||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Barnes, G. N.||Branch, James||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.|
|Beale, W. P.||Brodie, H. C.||Clough, William|
|Beauchamp, E.||Brooke, Stopford||Cobbold, Felix Thornley|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)||Hyde, Clarendon||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Illingworth, Percy H.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Jackson, R. S.||Robinson, S.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred||Robson, Sir William Snowdon|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Jardine, Sir J.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Crooks, William||Jenkins, J.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cross, Alexander||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Rose, Charles Day|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Rowlands, J.|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Kekewich, Sir George||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Laidlaw, Robert||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.|
|Dobson, Thomas W.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)||Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)|
|Duckworth, Sir James||Lambert, George||Sears, J. E.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lehmann, R. C.||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Erskine, David C.||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Essex, R. W.||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Lynch, H. B.||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Everett, R. Lacey||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Maclean, Donald||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||M'Crae, Sir George||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Findlay, Alexander||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||M'Micking, Major G.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Mallet, Charles E.||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Gibb, James (Harrow)||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Marnham, F. J.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Menzies, Walter||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E).|
|Glendinning, R. G.||Micklem, Nathaniel||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molteno, Percy Alport||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Mond, A.||Toulmin, George|
|Grant, Corrie||Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Ure, Alexander|
|Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Morrell, Philip||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Gulland, John W.||Morse, L. L.||Wardle, George J.|
|Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)||Myer, Horatio||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Napier, T. B.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||Norman, Sir Henry||White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)||Nuttall, Harry||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)||O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||O'Grady, J.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|Harwood, George||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Paul, Herbert||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Haworth, Arthur A.||Paulton, James Mellor||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Williamson, A.|
|Hazleton, Richard||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Hedges, A. Paget||Perks, Sir Robert William||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)||Pollard, Dr.||Winfrey, R.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Pullar, Sir Robert||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Hogan, Michael||Radford, G. H.||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Holland, Sir William Henry||Rea, Russell (Gloucester)|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Rees, J. D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Horridge, Thomas Gardner||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)|
|Hudson, Walter||Ridsdale, E. A.|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Butcher, Samuel Henry||Dixon- Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Du Cros, Arthur Philip|
|Balcarres, Lord||Carlile, E. Hildred||Faber, George Denison (York)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Cave, George||Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Fardell, Sir T. George|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester||Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Fell, Arthur|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Fletcher, J. S.|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Gardner, Ernest|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Gretton, John|
|Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Hamilton, Marquess of||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Stanier, Beville|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Morrison-Bell, Captain||Starkey, John R.|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Nield, Herbert||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Uxf'd Univ.)|
|Hills, J. W.||Nolan, Joseph||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Hunt, Rowland||Randles, Sir John Scurrah||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Ratcliff, Major R. F.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Remnant, James Farquharson||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Renton, Leslie||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Young, Samuel|
|Lowe, Sir Francis William||Ronaldshay, Earl of||Younger, George|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Salter, Arthur Clavell||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.|
|Magnus, Sir Philip||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
In page 1, line 18, to leave out from the word 'scale,' to end of subsection.
In page 2, line 6, at end to insert the words 'Provided that this provision shall not prevent a new licence being granted for any premises which are constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of an on-licence is merely auxiliary, in cases where the Licensing Commission give their consent, on being satisfied that under the special circumstances of the case the grant of the licence is reasonably required in order to meet the wants of the district or of persons resorting to the
district, and that such conditions will be imposed as will prevent the misuse of the licence to be granted."—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
In page 2, line 20, to leave out the word 'district' and to insert the words 'parish or area.'"—(Sir S. Evans).
§ Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 199; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 380.)807
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Higham, John Sharp|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dobson, Thomas W.||Hogan, Michael|
|Barnes, G. N.||Duckworth, Sir James||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Beale, W. P.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Beauchamp, E.||Erskine, David C.||Horridge, Thomas Gardner|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Essex, R. W.||Hudson, Walter|
|Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Hyde, Clarendon|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Evans, Sir Samuel T.||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Bennett, E. N.||Everett, R. Lacey||Isaacs, Rufus Daniel|
|Bethell, Sir. J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Jackson, R. S.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Fiennes, Hon. Eustace||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Findlay, Alexander||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Brace, William||Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter||Jenkins, J.|
|Branch, James||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)|
|Brodie, H. C.||Fuller, John Michael F.||Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Brooke, Stopford||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Kekewich, Sir George|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||Laidlaw, Robert|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Glendinning, R. G.||Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lambert, George|
|Cameron, Robert||Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Channing, Sir Francis Allston||Grant, Corrie||Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lupton, Arnold|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Clough, William||Gulland, John W.||Lynch, H. B.|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs.)|
|Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)||Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale)||Maclean, Donald|
|Compton-Rickett, Sir J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Cooper, G. J.||Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||M'Crae, Sir George|
|Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Hart-Davies, T.||Mallet, Charles E.|
|Crooks, William||Harwood, George||Markham, Arthur Basil|
|Curran, Peter Francis||Haworth, Arthur A.||Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)|
|Dalziel, Sir James Henry||Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Marnham, F. J.|
|Menzies, Walter||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Mond, A.||Robinson, S.||Toulmin, George|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Ure, Alexander|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Wardle, George J.|
|Morrell, Philip||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Morse, L. L.||Rose, Charles Day||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Rowlands, J.||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard.)||Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Myer, Horatio||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Napier, T. B.||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||White, J. Dundas (Dumbart'nsh.)|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Nuttall, Harry||Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Sears, J. E.||Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.|
|O'Grady, J.||Seaverns, J. H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)|
|Paul, Herbert||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Simon, John Allsebrook||Williamson, A.|
|Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Pollard, Dr.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Pullar, Sir Robert||Spicer, Sir Albert||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Radford, G. H.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)|
|Rea, Russell (Gloucester)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.|
|Rees, J. D.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Ridsdale, E. A.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.||Fletcher, J. S.||Ratcliff, Major R. F.|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.||Gardner, Ernest||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)||Gretton, John||Renton, Leslie|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester)||Hamilton, Marquess of||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Barnard, E. B.||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Heaton, John Henniker||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.||Hills, J. W.||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)|
|Bottomley, Horatio||Hunt, Rowland||Stanier, Beville|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Joynson-Hicks, William||Starkey, John R.|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Cave, George||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Marks, H. H. (Kent)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Cross, Alexander||Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Young, Samuel|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Younger, George|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Morrison-Bell, Captain|
|Faber, George Denison (York)||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Fell, Arthur||Randles, Sir John Scurrah|
In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word 'district,' and to insert the words 'parish or area.'
In page 2, line 35, to leave out the word 'district' and to insert the words 'parish or area.'
In page 2, line 37, to leave out the word 'district' and to insert the words 'parish or area.'
In page 3, line 11, to leave out subsection (7).'"—(Sir S. Evans.)
§ Amendments agreed to.808
§ And, it being Five of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 31st July, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Five o'clock till Monday next.