The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-06-20 00:00:00

NENT BILL.

The Bow lt; ;leg eoivo 1 Into Committee on the Supreme
Court of Judicature A 66 (187 P Amendmvnt Bill,
Levi Putman, aal all amendment tip that part ei
10 vs Melt provided that the nomlnari; n of cert ii; ca•
Judges if ilia linperial Court of Apvetil should le; tc
for three years only, without prejudice ',One I. •t 1.011,11. .1i
Of a 11:tirillg Judge. Be ohaerved that it woo. no, ~11,.
ciide t.. d...d with Judges in the woo prevented, i; ; e t
it to. c 4,4 a Judge of ; Fit.t
alight have become acquainted with the peculiarities of

Scotch or Colonial law, he would be liable to be removed.
The proposal of the 0 overnment wee that all the Judges In
the Court of Appeal should be placed upon an equality, but
he maintained that one Court, having the power to reverse
the decisions of another, ought to be the superior Court,
If it seas desired that the public should place greater
conthlence in its decisions than in those of the primary
Court.

The Lord Chancellor replied that these Judges were not
appointed for three years, but were appointed for life, like
other Judges of the land, and would discharge their duties
in rotation in the same way us the Election Judges. The
nomination of the Judges for three years would have the
effect of producing uniformity in the decisionsof the Court.
Lord nelborne expressed his satisfaction at the proposal in
the bill, though he would prefers modification of it, so that
the Judges should be nominated for two years instead of
three, as thereby the change of Judges would be rendered
more frequent.
The amendment was withdrawn.
Lord Penzance then moved another amendment for the
ptirissie of enabling iii Appeal to be made to the First
Divisional Court in cases where the decision of any oth r
Divisional Court reversed on any quest' of law ally
material part of the order or judgment appealed from.
The amendment was agreed to, and the hill then passed
through COuunittew
MMINTRATES (IRELANI AND coMMIsSIONERS OF DUBLIN

POLICE SALARIES BILL.

On the third reading of the Magistrates (Ireland) and
Commissioners of Dublin Pollee ~alaries Bill,

The Duke of Richmond. in reference to some observations
from Lord Lisgar, said he would consult with his colleagues
on the expediency of adding to the number of resident jus-
tices in Ireland.

The Infants Contracts Bill passed through Committee.
The Church Patronage (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time and passed, and the other orders on the paper having
' been disposed of, their lordships adjourned.
In the liiOpsi oF Comutoss, the whole of the evening was
occupied by the consideration of tile Report of Amendments
on the licensing BM.
On the Order of the Day being read, Mr. Ikalson called
attention to the large number of amendments Oil the paper,
amounting to eight pages, and also to the connolete elmooge
in the bill which would be enected by the amendments
standing in the Home Secretary's name. Chiefly he referred
to the proposal to restore the Justices' discretion by
giving them the power to define a 'populous place," which
was, in fact, calling on them to fix the hours in certain
places. Some of the amenohnents would re-open the whole
question of opening and closing ; and, under the circum-
stances, he urged the Home Secretary too re-commit the bill.
Mr. Bristow° supported the suggestion, lout Mr. Coo's
declined to entertain it. Mr. Roebuck took the oppor-
tunity of making some observations on the general ques-
tion, and the Rouse then proceeded to consider the amend-
ments.

The first was a Clause moved by Mr. Cross, postponing the
commencement of the Act, 1111 far as regard. hours of closing
until October 10. Sir W. Harcourt, in commenting upon it,
pointed out that it was consequential on the return to magis-
terial discretion to be proposed in a subsequent Clause; and
Mr. Cross replied that this discretion merely applied to the
definition of populous places, which could best be done by a
local authority.

The Clause was agreed to, and the neat Clause, moved by
Mr. Cawley, gave rise to a long conversation, it proposed
to give tho Licensing Justices power to fix the hours of open-
ing between five and SOVVII In the morning, and it was sup-
ported by Mr. Forster, Mr. Torr, Mr. Freddield, Sir if.
James, lind others, gm the gr d that an elastic rule is
needed by reason of the varying requirements of different
localities. Mr. Cross strongly opposed it, ;union R 4lviian it
was rejected by 241 to 2e7.

Various proposals were made with regard to grocers'
licences. Mr. Pease moved a eause prohibiting the issue of
any new licences, which was objected to Mk all sides, and
was not pressed ; and Mr. Staveley Hill proposed that
these licences should be granted, renewed, ttc., on the same
condition as publichouse licences. Mr. Cross admitted
that this was a point deserving consideration, but the
grocer had received no notice of it, and it would be pre-
mature bi press it Upon this Mr. Hill withirew the
clause.

Oil the motion of Mr. Gregory, a new clause was added to
the 1.111 prmiding for the temporary continuance if licences
forfeited without disqualification id premises, and a Clause
moved by Mr. Goldney was agreed to, providing for internal
communication between licensed premises and duly autho-
rised theatres.

Mr. Forsyth carried a new Clause permitting licensed vic-
tuallers to entertain private friends, at their own expense,
after the hours of closing.

After a proposal by Mr. Muutz to make a quarter past
twelve o'clock the hour of closing in the metropolis had been
negatived without a division, there followed a long and
animated controversy on an amendment moved by Mr.
Cross Inn the second Clause. In the definition of localities
in which publichouses shall be cloned at eleven p.m
he proponent for "parishes with a population of 2,509
or more," to substitute "populous places as defined
by this Act," with the intention of defining n a
subsequent clause a populous place as an area which, by
reason of the number iind density of the population, the
Licensing Justices may determine to be such. This change
was opposed by Mr. Forster, Sir 11. James, Sir W.
Harcourt, and others on the ground of its vagueness, and
because it virtually restored to the magistrates the power
of deciding as to Inonw of closing. Three 1110.i0114 hor
adjournment were made from the Opposition side, twin
of which were negatived I.y 276 to 129 and NS to
Ila, and the third WIB WithifraWll. After some further
wrangling the Government offered to be content with the
omission of the definition in the bill, and to postpone until
a future day the consideration of the words tube substituted
for it. This arrangement was agreed to, aLd the debate was
again adjourned.
The other business was disposed of, and the House 5,1-
ourned at ten minutes to two o'clock.