The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

o is .. decreasin;f the illicit sale of liquor. _/ l Mr. MEREDITH said that it must be borne in mind that undor this Act there were many de-- grees of criminality, 'There might be an unintep-- tional violat.on of the law, and it would be wrong to make & cas: fron rule in regard to such offence. The matrter should, as far as possible, be leftrin the hands of tue Liceonse Commissioners. If this were done, those who were real.l'i' guilty would be punished, and those who h unintentionally broken the law would not be punished with un-- necossary severity. Mr. FRASER said the amondment ofthe mein-- her for Uamilton should not be carried out. Me eonenrred in the view af the leader of the Opposi-- tion, that a man might broeak the law uninten-- tionally and be wrongly punished. But this did not refor to shop--keepers. 'Theoy d' not entertsin gnesis, and there was no necessity for any unin-- ) rentional infraction of the law on their part. . Ho | thought the law was all that it ought to be. and | any amendment thereto should be a move in the | wrong direction, Mr. GLBSON rhoweht that ow ing to the immense preesure brought to benr upon the License Com: imissioners it was absolutcly nocossary to amend the clause as he proposed, Mr. YOUNG thought that under the clause a man who had really no intention of breaking the law, might be deprived of his shop license. It was liable to work an injustice, as it was impos-- sible for a man always to control his clerks. He thoughi the clanse' shonld apply only where a man . had personal cognizance of the infrac-- tion of the law. _ He thought that in his section of the country the Saturday night law was well ub-- Mr. HARDY said it was proposed to place the license of smaller vessels nm'igating the inland waters upon the same grade as rural hotels. As the Act now stood all liconses for all vessels were $100. This amendment provided that vessels of a certain size should only pay $60, the same as a rural hotel. The clause then passed. . Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton) said he did not think the fourth clause of the Bill, which provides for the withholding of the license of a shopkeeper who was twice convicted, went far enough,. He thought that a person who was twice convicted of kenpfng a bar open after hours should not lose his license as weil as a shopkeeper. He was porfecily gatisfied that those who had the administration of this law would not be satisfied with such 'a slight change, He believed that the law relat-- inw to the e®sing of hars on Saturday night, and lhroufhom..*undny. was very xenerall{) broken, and if the Government wished to have the law en-- forced they svould make the punishment of those convicted more severe,. The fact was that the _bars would all be closed if hotel--keepers were sure that while their bars were closed other colll%d' tors were not driving a profitable business. he only true remedy was--to impose such severe pen-- alties as would effectually }:rovent a bar bell'xig kept ogcn. He would, therefore, move in anend-- ment that the Board of License Commissioners shall withhold the license from nn{i person twice convicted, for a dpuwd of not less than two years and for a third offence the person so convicted shall not thercafter receive a license. If this car-- ried he thought it would have the etfect of greatly decreasing the illicit sale of liquor. _ N2 VMERDariv¥eme® oc s a us 4 i w4 . s Mr. FERRIS could not see why other d should not be placed under the same penality holder of a shop liconse, -- The House went into Committee on a Bill to t}rivL increased efficiency to the laws against the illici sale of intoxicating liquor. On the tirst clause _ Mr. McLaughlin--Of Liskard and Union Star Division Sons of Temperance, against amend-- gl?e'lm b:o tho License Act respecting closing of 0 I8. The Attormey--General--Of the town Council of Woodstock ; Mr. Blezard--Of the township Council of Otonabeec : Mr. McLaughlin--Of the township Council of Clarke ; Mr.li)cck--Ot the townshipCouncil of Monmouth; Mr.Livingston-- Of the township Council of Waterloo: Mr. Pardee--Of the townshi%(?oum-il of Moore; Mr, Graham-- Of the township Council of Bosanauet; Mr. Liv-- ingston--Of the town Council of Gailt, severally praying for certain amendments to the Assessors' Act respecting the taxation of dividends. REPORTS3 OF COMMITTEEsS. Mr. PARDEE presented the ninth report of the Committee on Railways. THIRD READINGS. Thelfollowlng Bills were read a third time and passed :-- To change the nan.o of the village of Petersville to London West. , To incorporate the St. Catharines and Niagara Central Railway Company. <o>_ _ _ _ Mr. Metgalferut John stewart, of Kingston, re-- specting the police magistracy. Mr. lacnardsou Of the County Council of Leeds and Grenville, for free markets. Mr. Cascaden--Of P. J, Linderman et al., of Eagle, in favrour of the Port Rojyal and Lake Shore Railway Bill, __ _ _ _ _ C t To incorporate the Port Royal and Detroit River Railway Company. To amend the charter of lncorronlion of the Victoria Rolling Stock Company of Ontario. _ _ _'To contirm certain assessments of the city of Kingston, To authorize the Law Society of Ontario to ad-- mit Francis Hew Eecles as a barrister--at--law. The Speaker took the chair at three o'clock. PET]'}'[ON 3. The following petitions were presented :---- Mr. Calvin--Of the County Council of Frontenac ; Mr. Livingston--Of the County Council of Water-- loo, severally pra i-iug for amendments to the Jurors' Act respecting selectors. _ _ _________ _ To vest ceriain lands in the town of Woodstock in trustees, and to authorize a sale of the same. _ FOURTH PARLIAMENT--SECOND SESSION. ONTARIO LEGISLATURE. THE LIQUOR LICENSE ACT. Tnurspay, Feb. 17. why other deaiers w3 & a y e Couee rous and other birds bene PM (hor oo Neindronadia yai Ned 42 o5 buki O v ud ce ¥Gp, } [A doing so he briefly explained its etfect. | The motion was carried. RAILW A Y ACCIDENT3 BILL. # Mr. FRASE, in moving the second md-] lnrg all!ill to n;nke 1)ro\'i31011h for E)ll'i(:' ";:'fi 0oL _ railway _employees -- un the pu * the House ~ was }douhuess aware that the ; anow the clause to stand tor the present, The House rose and rclmrl-ul progress. It was declared to be six o' clock, and the left the chair, 8 Mr. HARDY --How would my hon. friend remedy that ? Mr. CREIG HTON--By ap'plyin? the same ma-- chinery to the tavern--keeper as it is l)roposed to apply to the grocer. He would like that the for-- feiture of the license should only take place when the prfl)ricwr wins oornizum of the offence. Mr. HARDY said that the clause perhaps might grand Th AHW tha fIncraus aa l 220 E20E C ho rnavdbrereences CC CCpe HRCCAITUE T ® Mr. CREIGHTON agreed in the main with the views of the member for Hamilton. He thought the Saturday night law was Hagrantly violated. Few convictions, moreover, were obtained for in-- fractions of that law. He thoucht there should not be the difference between the tavern--keeper and the grocer,. 'The object of the Saturday night law was to prevent the workingman from's uan-- dering his weekly wages. It was obvlous.('\ow- ever, dllmt the law in that respect was not ob-- served. Mr. HARDY --How would my hon. friend ramaAdw thar 9 C es PA Grayr faw 2 0O LC C 30 0P CRA00! CI4 U50, Mr. GIBSON (KWuron) said that in the view of an influential Commissioner shop licenses should be done away with altogether. He thought the amendment of the hon. meimnber for Hamilion was too severe,. In the section where he resided the Crooks Act had effected a wyreat change for the good. The Act had undoubtedly done a marked gosd thl'.()l.l'{'h()'l'l'l;_&tl'(: whole country, _ _ Mr. LONG thought that a house that sold liquor should sell nothing else. 'They had tried that dpln.n in his part of the country and they had found the system to work admirab a If this were done they could close both hotel and shop at the same hour. Mr. ROSS fully concurred in the resuarks of the last speaker. There were a number of places that had adopted the plan, and it had worked benefl-- cially in every case,. It was wrong to allow a man to sell liquor and groceries together. _ 'The [imcer was in the habit of giving a customer liquor for the rurpo.e of retaining his custom. This gave him an advantage over the grocer who did not sell liquor, which he should not posses, T'he suppositious case of the member for North Brant and others, was one that never oceurred in reality. A man could be convicted under the pro-- posed clause for a very slight and unintentional infraction of the law, but he never would be. As between the cluuse and the amendment thereto, he wu;sltlzfr:a\l\nl};}n favour of the original clause. 4. 8 ¥ * i dn o CLa N CI8 13 7 rl\ ' Mr, YOUNG said that the clause had been brought in by the res;res entations of the Licensed Victuallers. Me believed that the hotelkeepers broke the law more frequently than the shop-- keepers. 'The clause discriminating against shop-- keepers was a gross injustice, and he thought that their duty was to deal out even--handed 'justice. He was willing to agree to any enactment that would prevent the illfclt sale of liquor, but he would notagree to any enactmentthat pressed unduly upon any one class. -- The grocers engaged in the {iquor traftic were generally most respectable men, and he believed tried to the utmost of their power to carry out the provisions of the law. . He thought the amendment of the mem-- ber for flumilton was a move in the right direction. He believed that the whole law was wrong, and was a mere political machine in the hands of the Government. The law if right was not carried out, and could not be carried out. Mr. LA UDER thought the Bill discriminated rather suverely against the shop--keeper. He would like to see the law requiring bars to be closed during certain hours enforced, but he thoutht. the measures taken to enforce the dW should up?'ly to every one who sold liquor. He thought the amendment of the mem-- Mr. HARDY said he thought the Commissioners now had sufticient power to deal with the cases alluded toel(?' tho hon. member from London. He also agreed with the Commissiones of Public Works. The object of the Bill was to prevent the sale of liquor after the hours allowed by law. The hotel--keeper had to close his house at a certain hour, but this rule did not appiy to the shop-keflx r, ?mll'i therefore, a more stringent law was required n his case. served. He questioned whether a better obsery-- ance of the law woulid be obtained by sevorer penaltiecs. Heconld noisee why a iman with a shop license should be placed at such a great dis-- advantage with other retailers of liquor. . NJ Act for the protection of insectivo-- i1 progress. lock, and the Speaker