be carried on where the publican was disqualified from holding a license, but where the house itself was not disqualified. Amendment proposed, district get a bench of magistrates who felt strongly on this question, and who were prepared to record the smallest possible convictions. In another district they might have magistrates who took a different view, and thus the value of the record would be wholly different. He thought this record of convictions would work much better under the cumulative system, and he would be almost content to rely on the arguments advanced by the Home Secretary in defence of his proposal last year. He hoped the Committee would fairly consider this most important clause. MR. H. B. SAMUELSON hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would retain his own clause, especially as they had given the magistrates the discretion of recording the offences or not. The objections of the hon. Baronet were met by the provision; the magistrates were not directed to record the conviction unless they saw fit. He did not think that magistrates would be influenced in the discharge of their duties by prejudice, and it was quite certain that small offences would not be recorded. When they had two serious offences, it was only fair that on the commission of a third the license should be forfeited. MR. BRUCE said, that the hon. Baronet had referred in a complimentary strain to the proposal in the Bill of last year; but he must remind him that 12 months had passed since that time, and that they had gained considerable experience. They were sensible now that they must not make too large a demand upon public virtue. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet was no doubt more stringent than the clause in the Government Bill, but he did not think it would be operative if carried; and as the clause in the Government Bill would have all the practical effect that the hon. Baronet aimed at, though in a less stringent manner, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. Amendment negatived. MR. WATNEY moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 43, after the word "conviction," to insert "in cases where the Court decides not to disqualify the premises, the Court shall grant a provisional license to the nominee of the landlord or person beneficially interested in the premises until the next Brewster Sessions." If some such Amendment were not made, the business of a public-house could not In page 12, line 43, after the word "conviction," to insert the words "in cases where the court decides not to disqualify the premises, the court may grant a provisional license until the next Brewster Sessions."—(Mr. Watney.) MR. BRUCE said, the proposal was entirely new. It asked that a house, the license of which had been forfeited, should be put in a better position than at present. To ask that on behalf of an owner who, if he had strictly discharged the duties of an owner, might have prevented the misconduct which had forfeited the license, was to ask for an amount of indulgence which he thought the Committee would not grant. Without any such provision, it would be open to the magistrates, at the licensing Sessions, to grant a new license in the usual manner to a new tenant. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, that that could not be done under the existing law, except on the annual licensing day. A house, therefore, might be virtually disqualified for nine or ten months, even though it had been specially exempted from disqualification. Unless it were allowed to be carried on under a temporary license, the business belonging to it would go elsewhere, and the value of the goodwill would be seriously depreciated. MR. DODSON said, it was not necessary to put a house in a more favourable position than it occupied under the existing law. MR. AUBERON HERBERT regarded the Amendment as perfectly monstrous. as it would put the licensing power into the hands of the landlord of the house, who was an interested party. MR. HENLEY thought that there should be some provision in the Bill to prevent the disqualification of such houses. Suppose a public-house in the close neighbourhood of a railway station, and that travellers arriving at the station required refreshments and could not obtain them, the house where they expected to get them being shut up. He (Mr. Henley) was of opinion that the licensing authority should be at liberty to put some properly qualified person in to keep and conduct the house for the public accommodation, such per Li son not being a nominee of the disquali- | word "five" and insert "three." fied publican, for it would be a great censes were granted annually, and penalpublic inconvenience if a house were ties entailing forfeiture of licenses should closed for eight or nine months. not be held over for so long a period as five years. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON ventured to think that they would perpetrate an absurdity if they did not retain stringency in the clause. MR. WHITBREAD suggested that the Amendment might be amended by the substitution of the word "may" for "shall," and thus meet the objection. If this Bill passed, disqualification might happen at all times of the year, and be productive of great injustice. MR. BRUCE did not concur in the opinion of his hon. Friend relating to disqualification. MR. BRUCE could not consent to the alteration. He thought five years was not too long a period for a magistrate to consider in judging of the character of a publican. Amendment negatived. MR. RAIKES moved in page 13, line 10, the omission of the words "to an increased penalty," with the view of substituting "or the premises occupied by him to such forfeiture or disqualification as aforesaid." He thought where five MR. LOCKE objected to the view years had elapsed since a conviction for any offence under this Act had taken taken by the right hon. Gentleman on this question. Under this Bill a public-place, the fact of such conviction should house would be prevented from carrying mises or disqualification, to the injury not in any degree tend, as regarded preon business for a number of years. of the licensed person. MR. WATNEY said, he would amend his Amendment by substituting the word "may" for "shall," as suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). The Amendment would in that case run thus-"In case the Court decides not to disqualify the premises, the Court may' in its discretion grant a license." MR. RUSSELL GURNEY was of opinion that the owner of the premises, who really had the control of his tenant, should not be free from responsibility if the house continued to be badly conducted. MR. BRUCE adhered to the clause as it stood. He saw no hardship whatever in depriving a house of its license if there were three convictions recorded within the space of five years. It was most important in the public interest that such houses should be closed, and placed on the same footing as unlicensed houses. MR. R. N. FOWLER was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to adhere to the original proposition of the Bill. Question put, "That those words be there inserted.' The Committee divided: Noes 118 Majority 40. Ayes 78; Clause 29 (Conviction after five years. not to increase penalty). MR. WATNEY moved as an Amendment in page 13, line 9, to leave out the MR. BRUCE said, the Amendment fication could only take place where three was altogether unnecessary. Disqualioffences had taken place within a given time-namely, five years. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 30 (Omission to record conviction on license); and Clause 31 (Penalty for defacing record of conviction on license) agreed to. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again this day. And it being now Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting. The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock. SUPPLY. SUPPLY-considered in Committee. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock. INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) COMMITTEE. Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.) Entry on Premises. Clause 32 (Entry on premises by inspectors and constables). MR. LOCKE proposed, in page 13, line 26, to leave out "a constable," and insert "an officer of Excise." He thought it would be better to have an officer of Excise to examine any public-house or hotel, if he had reasonable ground to suppose that liquors were kept in them for an unlawful purpose, than any constable or member of the police force. MR. BRUCE said, the power of visiting hotels and public-houses by constables had been in existence for the last 30 years, and was inserted in various Acts of Parliament. Since that period no complaint had ever been made of the power being abused, and he was of opinion it would be better to leave it as it now stood than transfer it to officers of Excise. Amendment negatived. MR. WATNEY proposed as an Amendment in page 13, line 26, after "all," to insert "reasonable." SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the Amendment was inconsistent, for the police might construe it to mean whenever they had what they might call a reason. Amendment negatived. MR. RAIKES moved in page 13, line 27, after "every," to insert "public," so as to protect the family of the licensed victualler from unnecessary annoyance. MR. CAWLEY said, the Amendment would lead to a room in which improper proceedings were going on being marked "private," as, indeed, was now sometimes done with regard to gambling. MR. BRUCE also objected to the Amendment upon the ground that if it were carried all liquor liable to seizure would be sure to be stowed in the private part of the house, and there would be no security against an infringement of the law. Amendment negatived. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved in page 13, line 36, to omit "week," and insert "month." The hon. Baronet explained that the object of the Amendment was to afford officers in charge of warrants a better opportunity of visiting the premises of persons alleged to have committed offences against the Act. Amendment negatived. MR. LOCKE then moved to insert, in page 14, line 15, at the end of the clause, "if the convicting justice shall so order." The hon. and learned Member said, he should not think of applying that condition to the first part of the clause, but he thought it essential that it should be introduced at the end, in order that tavern-keepers might receive a fair amount of protection, particularly in cases where they chanced not to be so active as the police constables might think they ought to be. As the Bill stood, his failure to bring a candle, or a lucifer, or to omit doing anything which the constable might deem to be necessary for the furtherance of his object, would be a serious offence, and constitute a proper ground of conviction, and the conviction was to be endorsed upon his license. When the Committee remembered that only three offences were necessary in order to deprive a publican of his business and means of livelihood, it would not deem any security too great against his being ruined for any trivial cause. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON reminded the hon. and learned Member for Southwark that he had supported him in most of his previous efforts on behalf of the publican as regarded endorsing the license, because he thought that it was now a question of one of those wilful things that should be visited with the full penalty of the law. The publican in such a case could not say that the act complained of had been done without his knowledge or consent. MR. MUNTZ thought that if the magistrate were left to himself he would be certain to exercise a proper discretion in this matter. In many cases, however, the magistrate would be compelled to endorse the license, and that would have a cruel effect on the holder of it. MR. BRUCE thought the distinction drawn by the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex a perfectly just one, and it was not to the interests of the publican, or of anyone else, that conduct such as rected should have a shield thrown over that against which the clause was diit. He was content to go to a division, if necessary, upon the clause as it stood. MR. DODSON remarked that though the magistrate was not to have a discretionary power, the constable would be allowed a considerable one. Clause 34 (Licensing committee in counties). MR. COLLINS said, that the discre- | Amendment of Law as to Grant of Licenses. tion for the magistrate would be as to whether he should convict or not convict. He had supported the hon. and learned Member for Southwark in his series of Amendments as to hours and the definition of quarrelsome,' as to which doubts might arise, of which the publican should have the benefit. He was aware that the acts complained of had been done; but this was a matter of complaint as to which ignorance could not be pleaded. MR. CANDLISH hoped the right hon. Gentleman would sustain his clause. He could not see that the constable would have so much power under the clause. All he could do would be to state facts, while it would be for the magistrates to interpret them. MR. RAIKES remarked that it was very hard that the holder of a license should be punished by the endorsement of it for an offence which was only trivial. MR. LOCKE contended that the magistrates ought to have a discretion as to endorsing the licenses with convictions of minor offences. The furnishing of a constable with an insufficient light might be a trivial and the only offence the publican had committed; and in such a case a magistrate might very well come to the conclusion that, although he would inflict a penalty, yet at the same time he would not endorse the license. Amendment negatived. MR. DICKINSON moved the omission of the words, in page 15, line 14, "in counties." He asked permission to state why he preferred his Amendment to the proposition of the Government. He thought it was exceedingly desirable to keep as much as possible to the oldestablished authorities. The Bill would create a new authority for the purpose of confirming the licenses which had been granted, and he wished to keep up the present appellate authority of the Quarter Sessions. The proposal of the Government was, that in the larger boroughs a committee of three justices would issue licenses, and a larger body of the same justices would confirm them; and in the second class of boroughs the confirming authority would consist of three justices of the county joined with three justices of the borough. He proposed that the Court of Quarter Sessions should decide appeals, but that the justices voting in respect to them should not exceed 10 in number, and should have been appointed for that purpose. Also in boroughs the appeals should be decided at the Quarter Sessions by justices appointed to discharge that duty. At present the clerk of the peace disposed of all questions connected with the granting of licenses, and he saw no reason why that officer should receive extra payment for performing that duty. All these things might be avoided by making the one Court uniform for the entire county. MR. CAWLEY said, he had an Amendment which was to leave out the first three lines of the clause, which provided for the appointment of a standing committee to confirm the grant of new licenses, but it appeared it was to have nothing to do with renewals. Now, he was at a loss to see what means this standing committee could have of judging whether the magistrates who granted the license in the first instance were right or wrong in their decision. He assumed the standing committee was to be a substitute for the Court of Quarter Sessions; but if there was still an appeal to that tribunal-which he would wish to get rid of-then he could not see what could be the possible use of the committee. He would therefore like to get rid of this appellate Court altogether. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER moved as an Amendment, in page 15, line 14, to leave out from "a grant of," to "new licenses," in line 17, page 17, and insert MR. BRUCE, while admitting that in | cisions, such a power was rarely exerthe rural districts three or four magis- cised. trates generally performed all the work with unanimity and satisfaction, remarked that in some cases the wisest magistrates were overruled in the issue of licenses by their colleagues. The object of the plan proposed by the Government, therefore, was, by constituting a committee of the leading magistrates in the county to review the decision of the licensing magistrates, to give the people confidence that no licenses would be improperly granted. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, he could not but look it with favour, as it was alupon most identical with one of his own contrivance; but it was open to this objection-that it would bring together too large a number of magistrates, so that the tribunal would become an unwieldly On the whole, he considered the plan of the Government the most satisfactory one. one. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he concurred in the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Those who had experience of the Courts of Quarter Session knew that you could always put your finger on a few magistrates who did the whole work of the county. MR. BRUCE said, he forgot to mention, with respect to renewals, that he thought the best course was to leave them where they were, it being desirable in the case of vested interests to have the matter argued by barristers. Amendment negatived. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON then moved the insertion, in page 15, line 14, after "Counties," of the words "and Boroughs," the effect of which would be to place the review of all licenses, whether granted in counties or in boroughs, in the hands of one and the same committee. MR. BRUCE said, that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was not required, for the experiment of having a committee had been already tried with success in some of the larger boroughs. In these cases a small number of the best and most active magistrates were chosen, and they dealt with the question of granting and renewing licenses; and although the general body of the magistrates had power to reverse their de "and boroughs the licensing authority shall be composed of not less than three or more than six State, such justices to be appointed by the jusjustices, as may be determined by a Secretary of tices having jurisdiction therein from among themselves, with whom shall be associated for all purposes of a licensing authority a like number of ratepayers, who shall be elected for that purpose by the ratepayers in each borough or petty sessional division in counties, in like manner and under the same regulations as guardians for the relief of the poor are elected; the licensing authority to appoint one of their body to act as chairman, who upon all occasions shall have a second or casting vote; the quorum of such licensing authority shall be three members; the election to take place in the month of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and afterwards in the same month in the year one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and every third year afterwards, the retiring members, whether justices or elected ratepayers, to be eligible to be re-elected. If from any cause any member may not have been appointed or elected to succeed the retiring members, such members may continue to act until their successors are appointed or elected. Any vacancies arising from death, resignation, or other causes may be from time to time filled up in manner similar to that in which the member was The elected whose place has to be supplied. The hon. Baronet said, that the Amend- He |