COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 July 1860)

§ MR. HENNESSY
said, he would propose as an Amendment, that the House should resolve itself into Committee that day three months. He charged the Government, he said, with something like a deliberate breach of faith. On the 16th of February the Secretary to the Treasury, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Montrose, stated that the Resolutions then before the House were not intended to apply to Scotland or Ireland. In consequence of that authoritative statement the Lord Mayor of Dublin countermanded a meeting which he had convened for the purpose of protesting against the extension of wine licences to Ireland, and many of the Irish Members in consequence, he was sorry to say, supported the English Bill. He thought, moreover, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing the present Bill, forgot many circumstances peculiar to Ireland. The Irish licensing system was in many respects better than that of England. The present Bill sought to re-establish a system long since abolished. In a debate which took place in the Irish House of Commons in 1791, Mr. Grattan said it would be necessary to regulate the granting of licences, with the view of taking from the Commissioners that power and lodging it with the quarter sessions. The third clause of the present Bill provided that the power of giving licences should rest practically with the police Commissioners and not with the ordinary magistrates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down the proposition that the consumption of ardent spirits diminished as the consumption of wine increased. But the facts in Ireland did not bear out that assertion. In 1800 the number of gallons of wine consumed in Ireland was 1,200,000; of ardent spirits, 4,140,000. In 1810 the consumption of wine was 1,100,000 gallons; of spirits, 3,600,000. In 1820, the consumption of wine amounted to only 500,000 gallons, and that of spirits to 3,800,000. The relative proportions were the same in 1830 and 1840. In 1858 the consumption of both wine and spirits had decreased, which was to be accounted for by a remarkable increase in the consumption of tea. 2009 The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore was inapplicable to Ireland, however it might be true of England. In Ireland there was a number of refreshment-houses, in which no spirituous liquors were sold; but, as these houses would all be subject to a tax under the present Bill, the result would be that the owners would, on paying a little more, take out licences to sell liquors. All who had studied the question of intemperance agreed with Father Mathew in saying that, whenever the licensing system was increased intemperance would be increased, and this constituted the chief objection to the measure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was prepared to change the drunkenness of England for the drunkenness of France; but was he prepared to change the social life of the middle classes of England for the social life of the middle classes of France? In the larger cities of France the middle classes hardly lived in their homes, but in drinking-houses. No doubt it would be said that if some lighter drink were substituted for ardent spirits, good might be effected; but he had shown that, as the drinking of wine increased in Ireland, so did the drinking of spirits. The quarter from whence this Bill proceeded furnished the strongest argument against it. It is the proposal of a Finance Minister. His business is to augment the public revenue; and, whether he does so by diminishing public morality is not a question which seems to attract much attention at the Exchequer. He boasts that he will increase the revenue by facilitating the sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks. There have been Chancellors of the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) is one of them—who might make a very different boast—namely, that they increased the revenue by raising the duty on such articles. He regretted that the present Government had not tried the experiment of still further raising the excise on spirits, instead of adopting this reckless and immoral policy of endeavouring to secure national finances by endangering that national character for temperance which, since the labours of the good Father Mathew, has been the happy characteristic of Ireland.

COLONEL DUNNE
seconded the Amendment, because the present Bill transferred the regulation of the sale of spirits from the magistrates to the Excise, and that efficient supervision over drinking houses which was desirable would not be obtained.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
would not enter into the merits of the Bill, but wished to call to the recollection of the House what had passed about five o'clock that evening. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire drew attention to the state of public business, and to the extreme inconvenience of protracted debates, which were brought on after midnight. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had contrasted the course adopted by the present Administration, with that pursued by the Government of Sir Robert Peel, which never brought on measures that were opposed at a late hour; the consequences being that they succeeded in getting through the business in a most satisfactory manner. The Bill now before the House had stood for some time on the notice paper; and his hon. Friend, the Member for the King's County, representing one of the most important constituencies in Ireland, had given notice of an Amendment that it be read a third time that day three months; notwithstanding which the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose at half-past twelve o'clock, and moved that the Speaker should leave the chair. Lower down on the list of the evening's business was a similar measure for Scotland, notices of Amendments to which had likewise been given. His object was to facilitate the progress of public business, and to obtain for those measures a satisfactory discussion, and he therefore begged to move that the debate be adjourned. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen cried "Oh!" but Members sitting behind the Ministerial Bench had interrupted the hon. Gentleman, the Member for the King's County, with cries of "Move!" before he had half finished his short and moderate statement in support of the Amendment. He did not blame hon. Members for wishing to prevent discussion; but he blamed the Government for the pernicious and obnoxious practice of bringing on Bills which they knew would provoke discussion at so late an hour. In order that the House 2011 might, at one o'clock in the morning, proceed to the consideration of the forty-seven or forty-eight other Bills standing on the paper, with some reasonable prospect of advancing them a stage, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the noble Lord was, no doubt, sincere in his desire to forward public business; but he could not compliment him on his choice of the mode for effecting that purpose. The Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, if adopted, instead of being rejected as an inconvenient restraint, would not have applied to the present Bill, which had been taken up at a quarter, and not at half-past twelve, as the noble Lord imagined. The hon. Member for the King's County stated his arguments against the Bill, with his usual ability, and with great fairness; but it was quite evident that the natural time for opposition was to the second reading, when the Bill came on at eight o'clock, and when great numbers of Irish Members were in the House. Four-fifths of the Representatives of Ireland, he ventured to say, eagerly desired that this measure should be adopted. ["No, no!"] The momentary expression of impatience during the speech of the hon. Member for the King's County, had been provoked by his travelling over the general question, which had been largely discussed when the principle of the English Bill was agreed to. Separate Bills for Ireland and Scotland were introduced for convenience of form and procedure. He repudiated the idea that there had been any breach of faith with the House. No distinction whatever had been made between the three kingdoms in the Resolution which was adopted; and it had been distinctly made known, early in the course of the discussion on the English Bill, that measures would be subsequently introduced for the other portions of the United Kingdom.

§ MR. O'BRIEN
had always supported the removal of restrictions from the spirit trade; but that was a different thing from the support of a monopoly. The feeling of the people of Ireland was not that which had been represented by his hon. Colleague.

§ MR. BLAKE
believed that this Bill would do more towards promoting temperance and morality in Ireland than any measure that had been passed for many years. The Irish peeple were very glad to get a glass of wine whenever they could. What he meant was that they would gladly 2012 take a glass of wine in preference to a glass of spirits. This Bill would be a blessing to Ireland, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for it.

§ MR. M'MAHON
had asked the opinion of several of his constituents, and had not heard one expression of dissent to the Bill, except by a teetotaller, who was in favour of a Maine liquor law.

§ MR. BUTT
, after the immense preponderance of opinion among Irish Members in favour of the measure appealed to the noble Lord to withdraw the Motion of adjournment.

COLONEL DICKSON
denied that the majority of Irish Members were in favour of the Bill, and said that, if they were polled, the measure would certainly be condemned by them. Drinking was the great vice of Ireland. This Bill would encourage drinking, and it would be fraught with great disadvantage to the people.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
stated that by this Bill the obligation to pay the licence duty would apply, in Ireland, to those refreshment-houses, uot being wine-houses, which were open at night.