the words, "or the meetings of any clubs or other societies associated for any lawful purpose." MR. BRUCE said, he considered the societies referred to of such national importance that if he thought the pro they could not accept the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The number of these convictions depended upon the manner in which the police regulations were carried out. In some towns when a man was found drunk he was immediately removed to the police-posed boon would not be really injurious station; while in other towns he had heard it remarked that the safest way to reach home was to get drunk and to be taken there by a constable. MR. MELLOR said, that in the town he represented (Ashton-under-Lyne) the public-houses were visited by the police every 20 minutes, and the consequence was that the amount of drunkenness was only 2 per cent. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 25 (Punishment of persons found on premises during closing hours) agreed to. Clause 26 (Exemption from closing by order of local authority in respect of certain trades. See 28 & 29 Vict. c. 77, s. 2.) MR. VERNON HARCOURT said, he had an Amendment to propose. The clause gave power to grant special licenses in the case of markets; but he proposed to extend it further. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department intimated his intention of including theatres, and his (Mr. Harcourt's) proposition was to extend it to clubs-Freemasons' places of meeting, and other assemblies of that description-and give them the same privilege as that to be enjoyed in the neighbourhood of theatres. A strong feeling prevailed on the subject in many parts of the country. These clubs were often almost the whole social life of a place, and the magistrates ought certainly to be allowed the option of deciding if they were fitting objects of a little indulgence. He was aware it had been said that this object might be attained by means of an occasional license; but he said it could not. Suppose the Freemasons and the Odd Fellows were to meet every week in a place, were they to apply for a license. for each occasion? Would it not be simpler and better to enact that one license should suffice in all such cases? He would, therefore, propose as an Amendment, in page 11, line 18, after "public market," to insert he would gladly concede it. But since he received a deputation of working men in reference to it some time ago, he had received another deputation of working men from Leeds, and other large towns, who stated that they did not at all concur in the views expressed by the members of the previous deputation, and that, in their opinion, it would be a great advantage if the opportunities of drinking were taken away from these meetings. The memorial presented to him on that occasion was sent up by, and signed on behalf of, the District Trades Council of Leeds. It stated that the transaction of the necessary business of trade and friendly societies was almost always finished by 11 o'clock, if not by 10; that by working men meeting so often in public-houses they were made to contract habits of intemperance; that they were often prevented by it from returning to work at the proper time in the morning, thereby inflicting serious injury on their employers, and also on themselves; that the shortening of the hours of labour in most trades afforded greater facilities for getting through the business earlier than formerly; that places, other than public-houses, were fast becoming available for the purposes of these meetings; and that where such places were so used, the absence of intoxicating drinks was found to be attended with beneficial results. Now, when it was found possible to conduct business of this kind without resorting to public-houses, he thought there. was no very great case for the exemption which was demanded. MR. BAINES said, he felt it his duty to state that he knew the men from whom the memorial referred to by the Home Secretary proceeded. Many of them were men of high character, and he could answer for the truth of what they alleged. It was true that the clubs generally-and they were nearly numberless-closed at 10 o'clock, or soon after. With regard to the exemption in favour of persons attending theatres, he was strongly opposed to giving such a privilege to persons attending the perform ances at any of the low theatres in the large towns. MR. VERNON HARCOURT protested against the question being decided by the experience of Leeds, and said he should take the sense of the Committee upon the question. It might be the habit at Leeds to finish business at 10 o'clock; but in his place they did not begin business till past 10 o'clock. Were they by Act of Parliament to force habits upon people to which they were unaccustomed, and which they had no desire to acquire? The hon. Member for Leeds said they must teach those people what was for their good; they must teach them to go to bed early, and, in fact, they must make all England behave as Leeds did. England might then be a paradise, perhaps; but for the present England did not desire it. He had heard that an indictment could not be drawn against a whole nation, and no more could they make a whole nation go to bed early. If they could, why had not the House of Commons been long ago the first to set the example by enacting a Bill providing that the House should go to bed at 10 o'clock? Had such a Bill been brought in he should have voted with its promoters; but to force all people to go to bed at 10 o'clock because some thought it wise to do so was, in his opinion, very unfair. The fact was, that a great part of the social life of the country was spent in taverns, and they had no right whatever to put an end to it. People met there to chat, refresh, and amuse themselves, and also to discuss the political questions of the day; and he believed that as much of the history of England had been brought about in public-houses as in the House of Commons. MR. SAMUELSON observed that the effect of agreeing to the Amendment would be to induce every debating society to meet at public-houses, and they would stop up till all hours. Amendment negatived. Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 19, after the word "calling," to insert the words "or attending any theatre." -(Mr. Secretary Bruce.) MR. BAINES said, he was strongly opposed to the Amendment, than which, he thought, a greater social mischief could not be inflicted. Every hon. Member who witnessed the turn-out of per sons frequenting theatres must admit that a clause of this kind would have a demoralizing effect. His intention was to divide the Committee upon it. MR. LOCKE, on the contrary, thought the local authority should have full power allowed it of affording any reasonable facilities of this kind. He spoke, of course, for London, and did not pretend to know anything about Leeds. With respect to London, however, it was absolutely necessary that publichouses should be allowed to keep open after 12 o'clock. He was quite familiar with the views of the hon. Member for Leeds on these questions. He once had to sit with him on the same Committee for six weeks, and during that time the hon. Member opposed every proposition that was likely to make people comfortable. He never in his life heard him utter a word that would tend to make our passage through this life agreeable. His hon. Friend was strong on the subject of closing public-houses on Sundays; yet he knew that Sunday newspapers were made up on Saturday night, and Monday newspapers on Sunday night, and probably the hon. Member did not mind reading his Monday's paper. Yet in these matters there was always one class that was selected for attack. People like the hon. Gentleman were so much wrapped up in themselves that they thought of nobody else. Why should they? So far as London was concerned, it would be extremely inconvenient if the dreadful people whom he saw wandering through the streets on their return from the theatres should be starved by Act of Parliament-sent to bed with nothing to eat or to drink. In London these places and means for obtaining refreshment had been in existence from time immemorial, and men like Johnson, and many others of the highest eminence in literature, whose names would live when that of the hon. Member for Leeds was forgotten, had passed large portions of their lives there, among those whom attracted around them. their learning and their conversation The country was most certainly opposed to all legislation of the kind, and he hoped the Committee would not allow Leeds to legislate for it-upon this question, at any rate. MR. COLLINS said, he thought it objectionable to allow exemptions to be made in favour of persons attending any particular class of amusement or entertainment; but if those who had been taking part in the performances themselves were meant, he could understand it. that they should be kept open until that hour. He ventured to prophesy that the closing of these houses at 12 o'clock would result in great disturbance. ["Oh, oh!"] That was his opinion, and he had a right to express it, notwithstanding the murmurs of hon. Gentlemen from Yorkshire, Cumberland, and Lancashire. It was very possible that the histrionic performances at Leeds might be of a very low and inferior order, and that consequently it was wise to discourage the population from attending them. He was sure that the metropolis would protest against the closing of public-houses at 12 o'clock. MR. WINGFIELD BAKER thought the introduction of the word "theatre " was very inconsistent, and an afterthought of the framers of the Bill. It was making exceptions in favour of the chief causes of late closing. He understood that the object of the Bill was to put places of refreshment and, incidentally, of amusement under better regulations, and held that it would be unwise to introduce the proposed exemptions with reference to them. MR. BRUCE observed that when the Early Closing Act of 1864 was introduced it was held that so great a change should not be carried into effect without its being alleviated by certain conditions. Consequently, the local authorities were empowered to grant certain exemptions. The present Bill also would effect great changes. He had been informed that it was the general desire of the publicans of the metropolis that their houses should be closed at 12 o'clock. ["No, no!"] That statement had been made to him by metropolitan Members and other gentlemen; but it had also been represented to him that great inconvenience would result to those who frequented theatres, if they should not have the means of obtaining refreshment when they closed. He wished that the theatres closed earlier than they did. The people would enjoy themselves much better if the example of other great capitals was followed, and the performances were brought to a close at about half-past 10 o'clock. The national habits, however, could not be suddenly changed by legislative enactment; and he thought that some concession might be made in the present instance. That concession, however, would only be made by the local authorities when they were satisfied MR. WATNEY reminded the Comthat the social habits of the people re-mittee that this clause was the result of quired it. a compromise. The hour of closing was fixed at 12 o'clock on the express understanding that large discretion would be allowed in such cases as those under discussion. SIR HENRY HOARE hailed with great satisfaction the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would maintain the Amendment. On Saturday last, when some discussion arose as to the closing of public-houses in the metropolis, he assured the Committee that a clause providing exemptions in certain places should be brought forward; and it was extremely satisfactory to know that he would keep his promise, and would not defer to the expression of individual opinion. He (Sir Henry Hoare) protested in the name of the constituency he represented at the change of the hours for closing from 1 to 12 o'clock. It had always been said, both out-of-doors and in-doors, that it was the interest of the licensed victuallers to keep their houses open until 1 o'clock; but he asserted that it was the interest of the public SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN said, that if there was any place in which public-houses ought not to be open at unreasonable hours it was the vicinity of theatres. The clause, in fact, with this addition, provided that public-houses should be open just at the time when they should be shut. Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The Committee divided:-Ayes 124; Noes 96: Majority 28. COLONEL BARTTELOT said, the right hon. Gentleman having carried that Amendment could not well stop there but should extend the indulgence to every place of amusement. It would be a monstrously hard thing if people returning from a theatre were to be supplied with refreshment, whilst those who were returning from a concert or other place of amusement of a perfectly legitimate character-from Exeter Hall, for instance, in which he thought that per haps his hon. Friend the Member for SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON Leeds might be interested-were pre-said, that before it was put to the ComIcluded from it. He would, therefore, mittee he wished again to call the attenmove to add to the Amendment just tion of the Home Secretary to the fact carried the words, "or other places that in several parts of the country the of amusement - he meant "lawful" publicans had refreshment-houses apart amusement. from the public-houses, by which they were enabled to evade the provisions of the law in respect to the closing of the former. The guests in any one of those refreshment-houses had only to apply to the attendants for beer or spirits, and they, on receiving the money for those liquors, immediately fetched them from their master's public-house. The guests were thereby enabled to continue consuming those intoxicating drinks for hours after the closing of the public-house. MR. SCLATER - BOOTH observed that the House of Commons was neither a theatre nor a place of amusement, and therefore, even with this Amendment, hon. Members might not be able to get their refreshments at the stall in the lobby. MR. VERNON HARCOURT complained that an indulgence was granted to theatres which was denied to benefit societies and workmen's clubs. MR. AUBERON HERBERT thought so too, and hoped his hon. and learned Friend would renew his Motion on the Report. If he did so, he would certainly support him. While he was in favour of retaining the pains and penalties, he had no confidence in the hour regulations. He would in all such matters trust to the good sense of the people themselves, and give them that amount of liberty which they required. Amendment negatived. On the Motion of Mr. BRUCE, verbal Amendments made in the clause, consequent upon his Amendment. LORD GEORGE HAMILTON then proposed as an Amendment in page 12, line 13, to alter the metropolitan area by leaving out the words "Metropolitan Police District," in order to insert"parishes mentioned in Schedules A and B of the Metropolis Local Management Act." MR. BRUCE said, the other was the area mentioned in the Early Closing Act, and as it worked well he did not see any reason for making a change. Amendment negatived. In reply to Mr. ASSHETON, MR. BRUCE explained that the Court of Petty Sessions mentioned in the Act was that Court which was called at re gular times, and which all the justices might attend, as distinguished from any casual meeting of justices in a magisterial capacity. Clause, as amended, agreed to. MR. BRUCE said, the subject was one well worthy consideration. Those refreshment-rooms, however, which had a wine license had, at present, to close at the same time with the beerhouses. Those houses which merely supplied tea and coffee might be open as long as the public-houses were open, and were subject to the same regulations, and all would be under the same rule after the passing of this Act. The right hon. Gentleman then moved to add to the clause the following words : "And if any person keeping any such refreshment house as is mentioned in this section, sells or exposes for sale in such a refreshment house, or keeps or opens or keeps open any such refreshment house for the sale of intoxicating liquors during the time that such house is directed to be closed by this section, or during such time as aforesaid allows any intoxicating liquor to be conoffence be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten sumed on such premises, he shall for the first pounds, and for any subsequent offence to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds. "Any conviction for an offence against this section shall be recorded on the license of the person convicted." MR. LOCKE thought that the same rule should be applied to the keepers of refreshment-houses as to the licensed victuallers, and that the recording of the conviction should be left to the discretion of the magistrate. He would therefore move as an Amendment on the Amend ment the addition of the words-"unless MR. BRUCE said, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, so far from producing uniformity, Clause 27 (Amendment of law as to would establish an entirely new prinrefreshment-houses). ciple with regard to refreshment-houses. If his hon. and learned Friend would look to the earlier part of the Bill, he would find that wherever a licensed person sold liquor which he was not authorized to sell, or liquor to be consumed on the premises which he was only allowed to sell for consumption off the premises, these offences were to be recorded. It was proposed, on the same principle, that the convictions of refreshment-house keepers should also be recorded. MR. LOCKE said, if it was the law already, why was it necessary to introduce the words in addition to what he was moving? MR. BRUCE said, his hon. and learned Friend had misunderstood him. He said that in the former clauses of the Bill it was provided that convictions should be recorded. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend would produce diversity and not uniformity. MR. LOCKE said, the offence of the refreshment-house keeper might be a trifling one, and a discretion ought to be left to the magistrates. MR. COLLINS said, that Clauses 4 and 5 applied to offences which were practically wilful offences. This clause, however, applied to closing hours, and he thought the same reasons which led them to give the magistrates a discretionary power with regard to offences in the matter of closing and opening publichouses applied to refreshment-houses. Amendment to the said proposed Amendment agreed to. Amendment, as amended, agreed to. Repeated Convictions. record of such conviction shall appear upon such renewed or transferred license. posed by the convictions under the provisions of "(2.) Whenever the amount of penalties imthis Act so endorsed upon any license shall amount within a period of three years to the sum of thirty pounds, such license shall thereupon become ipso facto void. "(3.) Whenever the penalties imposed upon any holder of a license under this Act shall amount to the sum of fifteen pounds in a period of three years, such person shall be thereupon disqualified for a period of three years from the date of such last conviction from being the holder of any license under this Act." He said that they had now come to the clause which, after the clause relating to closing hours, was the most important part of the Bill. It related to the manner in which they proposed to record on the licenses the convictions of those who were convicted for offences under this Act. They had had one or two schemes for this object before them. They had in their recollection the scheme introduced by the right hon. Gentleman last year, which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) ventured to think was a far better way of recording convictions than that proposed in the Bill. The object of his Amendment was, to make in some way the record of the convictions proportionate to the offences which were recorded. Under the cumulative penalty which he now proposed, and which was suggested last year, the smaller offences were valued against the license in proportion to the character of the offence. That, he thought, was more equal and more just than to draw a hard-and-fast line and say that three convictions which the justices might think fit to record should forfeit the license. The cumulative penalty provided that a certain number of offences, according to their Clause 28 (Forfeiture of license on merits, should forfeit the license, and in repeated convictions). that way two or three heavy penalties would effect that result. The Bill, in its present form, required that whatever the value of the convictions, when a certain number had been recorded the license should be forfeited. That provision had been softened by the admission of words giving a permissive power to record; but still he thought the mode of record proposed in the Government Bill of last year far more satisfactory. The value of the cumulative penalty was, that small offences would have a proportionately small bearing against the value of the license; whereas under the clause as it stood they might in one |