The Licensing Act 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 94) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that enacted various regulations and offences relating to alcohol, particularly licensing of premises. The act is one of the Licensing Acts 1828 to 1886 and was one of the Licensing (Ireland) Acts 1833 to 1886. Most parts of the act have been superseded by more recent Licensing Acts, but some parts remain in force. In particular, the act creates an offence of being drunk in public with a maximum fine of level 1 on the standard scale (£200 ); and of being drunk in a public place while in charge of a horse, a cow (or other cattle), a steam engine, or a carriage, or in possession of a loaded firearm, with a possible penalty of a fine of up to level 1 on the standard scale or 51 weeks in prison. "Carriage" has been interpreted as including mobility scooters, though exemptions apply under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; bicycles are covered by their own offence in the Road Traffic Act 1988. The act: These policies were enforced by the police. It was an unpopular act for the working classes and there were a number of near riots when police tried to enforce closing hours. Brewers resented what they saw as an attack on their independence and profits; others disliked the act because it interfered with personal liberty.

Passage

The Intoxicating Liquor (Licensing) Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on 16 April 1872, presented by John Wodehouse, 1st Earl of Kimberley. The bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 2 May 1872, introduced by John Wodehouse, 1st Earl of Kimberley. During debate, Charles Gordon-Lennox, 7th Duke of Richmond, led criticism of the bill, focusing on the drafting of the bill, the powers given to the Home Secretary over local magistrates and the unfair treatment owners of public houses unfairly by punishing them for tenant misconduct. The bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole House, which met on 10 May 1872, with amendments. During debate, a proposed amendment to establish special public house inspectors was rejected, but amendments to remove the Home Secretary's veto power over new licenses and reduce the severity of enforcement were accepted. The bill was re-committed to a committee of the whole house on 7 June 1872, which met on 7 June 1872, where a proposal by Earl Grey's for local authorities to take control of liquor trade based on Gothenburg system was rejected. The committee met again on 10 June 1872 and reported on 10 June 1872, with amendments. The amended bill had its third reading in the House of Lords on 13 June 1872 and passed, without amendments. The bill had its first reading in the House of Commons on 17 June 1872. The bill had its second reading in the House of Commons on 11 July 1872 and was committed to a committee of the whole house, which met on 23 July 1872, 26 July 1872, 27 July 1872, 2 August 1872 (twice) and 5 August 1872, and reported on 5 August 1872, with amendments. The third reading of the bill was adjourned on 6 August 1872 due to insufficient time to review changes resulting from the increase size of the bill from 62 to 87 clauses. The amended bill had its third reading in the House of Commons on 7 August 1872 and passed, with amendments. During debate, the Home Secretary, Henry Bruce defended the bill as moderate reform rather than prohibition. The amended bill was considered by the House of Lords on 8 August 1872 and agreed to, with the exception of an amendment to the repeals of one of the acts listed in the second schedule to the act. The Earl of Kimberley noted that the amendments were numerous but mostly made bill less stringent, and peers expressed their optimism that the bill would reduce drunkenness. The House of Commons reported on 8 August 1872 that they did not insist on that amendment. The bill was granted royal assent on 10 August 1872.

Provisions

Repealed acts

Section 26 of the act repealed 24 enactments, listed in the second schedule to the act. Section 26 of the act also included safeguards to preserve any security given, anything duly done, any rights acquired or liabilities accrued, any removal of a license or certificate in pursuance of the section 2 of the Intoxicating Liquors (Licences Suspension) Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 88), any penalty forfeiture or punishment incurred, to be incurred or under investigation. Section 26 of the act also provided that notices under the Gaming Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 109) were to be those deemed by this act, and that offences under that act be offences under the act.

Legacy

Courtenay Ilbert described the act as a Consolidation Act, given that the act, which amended the law relating to alcohol, also consolidated various enactments relating to that particular branch of law. In 1884, offences under the act were considered in the case Cundy v Le Cocq. The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under the Licensing Act. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The court held that knowledge was irrelevant — the question was whether a reasonable dispenser of the last drink sold would have realised the customer was clearly intoxicated.