Amendment proposed, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day three months," Mr. Alfred Marten.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." who desired the sale of liquors in their | could sell less than a quart, and thereown hands, and on the other hand those fore it was not unreasonable that Scotwho desired to stop the sale of liquor land should come to Parliament and ask altogether. But he trusted that the to be put on the same footing in that House would not assent to the proposal respect with England. It had been of either party. As to the matter of urged that the principle of restricting restricting the quantity which grocers the number of new licences to 1 in 500 might sell to a quart bottle, while he of the population was a new one, and did not agree as to the quantity, he ob- hon. Members had spoken as if such an jected that any rule should be introduced idea had never before been broached; on the subject for one part of the coun- but it was within his (Mr. M'Laren's) try which did not apply to another. On own memory that the Secretary of State these grounds, and considering the Bill for the Home Department under the was based on a pernicious principle, he last Government did himself bring formoved the rejection of the Bill. ward a Bill of the same nature, only of a more stringent character than the present measure. Whilst the present Bill required that there should be only 1 public-house for every 500 of the population, or for every 100 families of five persons on an average, the Bill of Lord Aberdare proposed that there should be only 1 to every 1,000 of the population, or for every 200 families of five persons each. The present Bill therefore provided for double the number of publichouses which were provided for by Lord Aberdare's Bill, the official organ of the late Government; and yet the present measure was held up to the House as if it was something new in the history of legislation. Then we were told that the diminution of public-houses would lead to the erection of huge gin shops. Why, that was the case already. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been acquainted with the state of matters in the large towns in Scotland, he would have known that those large gin palaces already abounded there, and that there was no tendency to their being diminished in number. In dealing with this subject it ought to be kept in mind that the people of Scotland knew their own interest. They knew that by this Bill they would benefit themselves without doing injury to any other part of the country, and the records of the House showed that it was a measure in favour of which an immense number of Petitions had been presented. The feeling in Scotland was undoubtedly to a large extent in favour of it. The measure, however, had been objected to on various grounds, and amongst others that it was simply a "Permissive Bill" a little disguised; but anyone who knew Scotland, and how the measure was likely to operate, must know that such was not its nature. The Permissive Bill had MR. M'LAREN said, he had seldom heard a speech in that House which contained so many fallacies as did the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Marten). There was one thing which must have occurred to every hon. Member who had listened to that speech, and that was, that every illustration in regard to a Bill specially applicable to Scotland was drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman from England, and England alone. Here was a Bill introduced for the purpose of remedying evils which existed in Scotland, and the only proofs which the House was asked to consider in opposition to it were drawn from Cambridgeshire and the neighbouring counties. The observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman showed clearly that he did not know very much about England in regard to the matter of publichouse licences; for, with respect to the limitation of the quantity of spirits which a grocer might sell to a quart bottle, he had remarked that it would be desirable that any legislation on that matter should be uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom. Now, with that remark he (Mr. M'Laren) entirely agreed; but the fact was that it was for the purpose of securing uniform legislation for the United Kingdom that this clause was introduced into the Bill. The law in England-although the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be ignorant of the fact-was that no person Mr. Marten as that it should be read a second time. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON did not like to allow the discussion on the Bill to close without saying a few words expressive of his own opinions only. There were some clauses of the Bill to which he gave a hearty assent; but, on the other hand, there were certain provisions in it to which in that House he had always given opposition. The first operative clause of the Bill was the 3rd, which proposed to deal with the limitation of houses by population, and he ventured to think, and had always thought, that that was a mode of dealing with this question which was eminently unsatisfactory, and which if acted on would tend rather to set up an increased number of public-houses. Clause 4 proposed to deal with a question to which he had given his assent, though not in the way or to the extent provided for by this clause. On former occasions when the subject was under discussion, he had said it would be wise and tend very much to promote what they had all at heart-namely, the diminution of the drunkenness which existed in the country been described as implying the total extinction of public-houses, but to attribute that object to this Bill, and call it by such a name, seemed to him a strange infatuation. There were many streets and squares in every large town in Scotland where the houses were all private residences, and where there was not a public-house or place of business, of any kind; and it had been found that a particular party, having secured a house in one of these streets, thought it advantageous to himself to convert it into a public-house. He got a licence, and made a bargain with his tenant whereby he was enabled to receive perhaps double the rent he would otherwise do for the house as a private residence. The consequence was that whilst the house which thus obtained a licence was greatly enhanced in value, the value of the properties adjacent were greatly deteriorated. He had in his eye a case where, of two or three houses next to the one which had been thus dealt with, one was unlet for a year, whilst the second and third from it were greatly reduced in rent. The contiguous properties were, in fact, all materially injured by such public-houses. He asked hon. Members who chose to consider this Bill in a fair spirit whether if some 50 proprietors agreed to erect houses of the same class in the same street, without any provision whatever in regard to public-houses, it was right that their property should be thus injured by one of these men turning his residence into a public-house? Persons in the large towns in Scotland objected to having private residences next to public-granting of licences for the sale of spirits houses, and would only lease such residences at a reduced rent. That was the explanation of the provision, that no new licence should be granted, unless the majority of the inhabitants within 500 yards of the proposed public-house were favourable to its establishment, and it was not only defensible, but it was an admirable provision, which ought to commend itself to every hon. Member of the House. In conclusion, he would not detain the House any longer, lest the measure might be talked out; and he wished only to say, that whilst he did not approve of everything which appeared in the Bill, and would be content to see it amended in some respects in Committee, he thought that the principle of the measure ought so far to be affirmed if the sale of spirits were taken away from grocers. Whilst he was not prepared to say that the power which they had of selling wine and beer in bottles was detrimental, he did maintain that, with regard to the sale of spirits, Parliament had introduced a system which had acted prejudicially, and had increased the drinking of spirits throughout the country. So far, then, as this clause would do away with the future to grocers throughout the country, it would have his own hearty support. With another clause which dealt also with the sale of spirits by grocers in Scotland he equally agreed, and that was the clause which limited the sale to closed vessels. He was aware that the law of Scotland allowed spirits to be sold by the glass, and he thought that such a privilege encouraged drinking. He, therefore, if grocers were to continue to sell spirits at all, wished to see their licences assimilated to the law of England in that country. With regard to another proposal which had been commented on-namely, the power of removing licences-he would remind the House that such a power was granted under the English Licensing Act to the magistrates, and he believed that the power had been most usefully exercised in reducing the number of public-houses in over-crowded districts. But he confessed that he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. M'Laren) in his appreciation of the latter part of that clause, in which power was given to the ratepayers by a majority to object to the introduction of a publichouse into their district. He would prefer to leave the law as it was at present, with the power that existed for insuring the owners of the property against the introduction of licensed houses into their neighbourhood if they chose to exercise it, rather than introduce the principle to which he had already objected, that any majority of the ratepayers might decide in this particular trade, and not in any other trade, as to whether it should be carried on in their district. There was only one other clause to which he need make any reference, and that he thought the House would do well to assent to-namely, the abolition of the table beer licences. If he could persuade his hon. Friend the Member for Bute (Mr. Dalrymple) to withdraw his Bill on the present occasion, and consider the subject carefully before another Session, he would infinitely prefer that to the House giving what he thought would be an undecided vote upon a measure which would require a great deal if not material amendment before it became law. MR. MARK STEWART said, although he should support the second reading, he must join the hon. Baronet in asking the hon. Member to withdraw the Bill in order that it might be more thoroughly considered during the Recess, and when they might approach the subject enlightened by that debate, and to bring in a better Bill next Session. They all knew that it would be practically impossible to carry this Bill in the present Session if anything like opposition was shown to it. At the same time, he must say that the introduction of this measure had given great satisfaction to most of the people with whom he had come in contact in Scotland, and there was a very keen interest felt amongst a large number of constituencies respecting it. They did not believe that the Bill could in its present shape become law, but they saw in it the germs of legislation which was capable of doing good Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson service. He rather shared the view of those who thought the promoters of this Bill had not fully matured this subject in their own minds, and that was an additional reason why it should not be pushed forward in the present Session. Although he was not one of those who believed that they could make people sober altogether by Act of Parliament, still there were statistics which proved that owing to a diminution of publichouses in certain districts there had been a great reduction of intemperance, and he thought that if some such scheme as the Bill embodied were laid before the House, with the authority of the Government, it would be very popular in Scotland, would attain the object of temperance reformers, and would certainly stay the agitation for the Permissive Bill. With regard to the grocers question, he conceived that there were some difficulties about that matter which had not been laid before the House at all. It was well known that in large centres, such as Edinburgh, there were grocers who were in the position of large wine merchants as well; and to withdraw the licences from such persons might be a matter of very great pecuniary hardship; but, at the same time, his experience told him that the feeling in Scotland was favourable to dealing with grocers' licences in the way proposed by the Bill. He need not tell the House that the feelings of the Presbyterian and other Churches of Scotland were in favour of the Bill; and if it were postponed until next Session and amended in some respects, it would have a better chance of being passed into law than at present. COLONEL MURE said, that sometimes when he listened to the terrible pictures which were drawn of the evils that resulted from drink in this country, he wondered that more people did not vote for the Permissive Bill, even although he did not vote for it himself. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Marten) had spoken upon this measure without seeming, as far as he could make out, to have been much in Scotland, or to have obtained much information about that country. If the hon. and learned Member had been much in Scotland, he would at least have found out one thing, and that was, that the drinking habits of the people of Scotland-more particularly of those in large towns-were not only the source of most of the crime which existed in that country, but also that they were every day producing a feeling of disgust amongst the respectable inhabitants. It was those drunken inhabitants who every year not only increased taxation, but caused an immense amount of suffering amongst women and children, and brought the people face to face with the agitation in connection with the Permissive Bill. Putting aside the enormous advantage it would be if they could get rid of the crime and suffering caused by drink, he thought that it would be a great advantage in itself if, by passing any measure of this kind, they could get rid of the agitation which otherwise would arise every year in regard to the Permissive Bill. For himself, he was convinced that the drinking habits of the people of Scotland were a great deal worse than those of the people of England. ["Oh, oh!"] In the neighbourhood of Glasgow a very strong agitation arose last year in consequence of the enormous number of licences that had been granted; and in connection with this very Bill he had had repeated representations made to him of the gross abuses attributed to the Justices in granting so many licences in that vicinity. It was unquestionably the case that if they had fewer public-houses in a place in proportion to the population they would make the exercise of police supervision much easier. He believed, moreover, that where they had a vast number of small public-houses in a district, the effect was to reduce the quality of the liquor sold. He was very glad to find that his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) at least agreed with some parts of the Bill; and he believed that if they were to go to a division and were beaten, his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate would feel bound after the expressions that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill next Session. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I would remind my hon. Friend that I said I spoke my own views entirely. COLONEL MURE said, he was glad, at all events, to have one Member of the Government who recognized the evils that existed in Scotland, and was anxious to do something to mitigate them. With regard to the power of removal of licences, all they wanted was to have that power made exactly the same as it existed in England. But there was one remark which fell from the hon. Baronet which he should like to allude to for one moment. He said that the ratepayers at the present time had it in their power to reduce the number of licences. That was perfectly true-the ratepayers in burghs in Scotland had the power, if they were only to exercise it, of reducing the number of public-houses. At present the bailies were elected by the ratepayers, and the magistrates were chosen from amongst the bailies; but every time that the election of the bailies took place in Scotland what happened? The liquor question was introduced, and how did the majority vote? they voted in the interest of the licensed victuallers. And as long as that condition of things existed, he was convinced that if the House were to pass the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to-morrow the effect would be in a great number of places exactly the contrary to what he expected. MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE was glad that an hon. Member for a Scotch constituency had had the courage to tell the truth. In spite of the Forbes-Mackenzie Acts and other Acts passed with reference to Scotland, drinking in that country was greater now than it was previous to their being passed. He was himself opposed to all this kind of legislation, as he did not believe that they could improve the social habits of the people by Act of Parliament. With regard to this particular Bill, he objected to it in toto. MR. E. JENKINS said, he rose for the purpose of asking the Lord Advocate what the mind of the Government was on this measure. They had heard a speech from the hon. Member for Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), but the hon. Gentleman disclaimed having spoken at all in any Governmental or authoritative way, and it would be only respectful to those whose names were on the back of the Bill, as well as to a strong party in Scotland who were supporting it, if some sort of announcement were made from the front bench as to the course which the Government proposed to take. THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that the question involved in the Bill had not been considered maturely by the Government. He could only say that they gave their cordial support to the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Glasgow re It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow. METROPOLIS GAS (SURREY SIDE) BILL. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. Ordered, That all Petitions presented against the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill, provided such Petitions are presented one clear day before the meeting of the Committee; and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard, by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against the said Petitions:-That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:-That Three be the quorum.-(Sir Charles Adderley.) gulating the granting of licences. That Bill had passed into an Act, but there had been no time yet to ascertain what would be the effect of it. He believed that it would effect a very considerable improvement in matters connected with public-houses in Scotland, and the Government gave their support to the Bill on that understanding. The present Bill contained several propositions, which had been supported by most of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) who took a great interest in this question, had expressed his opinion rather against the clauses which were contained in the first portion of the Bill as to determining the number of licences which should be granted with reference to population. He (the Lord Advocate) did not know any person who was better entitled to express an opinion on the matter than his hon. Friend, because, as he said himself, he had originally entertained a different opinion, but he came, after due consideration, to the conclusion that no good result would ensue from these clauses. The question was obviously one which required great consideration with reference to the interests of England and Ireland, it might be, as well as of Scotland. With reference to the way in which the Bill dealt with grocers' licences, he thought that the grocers were placed in a very peculiar position at present, for they were opposed to two rival intereststhat was to say, those who were proposing to get rid of their licences in the interest of temperance or teetotalism, and those who were trying to get rid of their licences for the purpose of enlarging the public-house interest. He thought, upon the whole, that the measure had not received that amount of consideration which it ought to receive, and the safe course would be for the hon. Gentleman who had moved the second reading to consent to the withdrawal of the Bill to enable further time to be given for its consideration. If the hon. Member did not take that course, he must express his own individual opinion that the Bill should be read a second time on that day two months. MR. DALRYMPLE intimated his intention to take a division on the Motion for the second reading. MR. ORR EWING rose, and was addressing the House, when The Lord Advocate Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 246.] WINTER ASSIZES BILL. amend the Law respecting the holding of On Motion of Mr. Secretary CROSS, Bill to Winter Assizes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary CROSS and Mr. ATTORNEY General. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 245.] Then the House having gone through the Unopposed Business on the Paper House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Thursday, 13th July, 1876. * MINUTES.]— Sat First in Parliament — The Earl Howe, after the Death of his Brother. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Legal Practitioners (Ireland)* (170); Nullum Tempus Second Reading-Medical Practitioners (157) ; (Ireland)* (171). Customs Duties Consolidation* (162); Customs Laws Consolidation* (163). Committee-Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chelmsford, &c.)* (161); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artizans and Labourers Dwellings) * (127). |