[BILL 102.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 19 March 1883)

§ MR. CARBUTT
said, seeing the lateness of the hour, he did not mean to make a speech on this subject, but 918 merely wished to say that it had been two years before the House; therefore, everyone was well acquainted with it. He was glad to find that so many hon. Members were coming round in favour of the Bill. He even saw that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who had had a block against the Bill for two years, had taken that block off. He had much pleasure in moving the second reading.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he thought the reasons adduced by the hon. Member who had moved the second reading were reasons why they should postpone the further consideration of the Bill until after Easter. For his own part, he (Mr. Callan) had never heard of the Bill before that day. It was of a most extraordinary character. He had had rather a large experience—["Hear, hear!"]—of elections in Ireland, and was familiar with the manner in which they were conducted. He had had the pleasure of defeating a number of the Colleagues of hon. Gentlemen who cried "Hear, hear!" and of defeating the instigators of this Bill, even as regarded his own election. What was the real provision of the Bill? It was that public-houses should be closed in every parish where there was a polling place on the day of an election. The parishes in Ireland, and, he believed, also in England, were of very large extent—sometimes quite seven miles in length. Because, forsooth, there might be 200 or 300 electors voting in a district at one end of such a parish, all the public-houses were to be closed during the entire day. "When people went to vote, they generally travelled some distance. If persons were going into a parish on business or any service, they were to have facilities for obtaining refreshment; but if they were going to vote, though they might wish to treat a friend or to treat others, they were to be denied or debarred the privilege of obtaining anything to drink. Moreover, the law already in force—which, he believed, would be made even more strict by the Government Bill—penalized any corrupt treating at elections. If treating was not corrupt, why should an attempt be made to put a stop to it? He saw that 919 a conference was now taking place between the promoters of the Bill and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. Surely, if this restriction was to be placed on the opening of public-houses during the day of election, it was a provision that should be introduced on the responsibility of the Government, and not on that of a private Member, more especially as Notice had been given of a Government Bill dealing with Parliamentary Elections. He thought it would facilitate the Business of the House, which hon. Members pretended to be so much in favour of, if the hon. Member were to withdraw his Bill and introduce it in the form of an Amendment to the measure of the Attorney General. At any rate, it would be well for them to discuss the Bill sometime in the course of an evening, and not at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock in the morning. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. LEAMY
rose to second the Motion.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he would second it. As to the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Carbutt), it was not quite accurate to say that he (Mr. Warton) had taken off his block from the Bill. By some mistake he had omitted to see that the block was on the Paper—he must take extra care in future. He still looked upon this, as he had always looked upon it, as a piece of Puritanical legislation, and therefore he opposed it.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, he wished to say a word as to the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. The subject dealt with was a very important one. No doubt, many advantages would arise from closing public-houses on election days; but if a provision of this kind was to be adopted, the proper place for it would be in the Corrupt Practices Bill. The Government had not introduced such a clause into their measure; but he was right in saying that the Government were quite willing to be guided in 920 the matter by the feeling of the House. The division they had just taken might be looked upon as showing, to some extent, the feeling of the House; but if the House would allow the Question as to the second reading to be put, it would show more clearly what that feeling was. For himself, he would not give an opinion, aye or no, on the Bill, but he hoped the House would.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, the division they had taken was no indication of the feeling of the House. Many of them only voted in favour of the adjournment on the ground that the hour was too late to pass the second reading of a measure of such importance. He did not know exactly what course the hon. Member in charge of the Bill meant to take—whether he meant to drop it, for the purpose of introducing a clause into the Corrupt Practices Bill, or whether he meant to go to a division. He (Mr. Sidney Herbert) could not say what he should do, not knowing what course the hon. Member proposed to take.

§ MR. CARBUTT
I shall go to a division.

§ MR. SIDNEY HERBERT
said, then he opposed the Bill, and he did so because he objected, in the first place, to what was called grandmotherly legislation. He did not deny that closing public-houses on election days would stop a great deal of drunkenness, and that it, perhaps, in many cases, might be of great advantage; but they should not lose sight of the fact that in large boroughs voters, who had to come long distances to vote and then to return to their places of business, would be put to great inconvenience if they were debarred from obtaining refreshment in their hotels. His own constituency was a purely agricultural one, covering something like 56 square miles of country. An agricultural labourer would possibly have to walk, on the day of election, eight or nine miles to register his vote. If the public-houses were closed he would have no opportunity of getting any refreshment whatever. He was not anxious that men should get beer or other intoxicating liquor particularly; indeed, he should be almost inclined to support the Bill, if it could be shown that there were sufficient coffeehouses in which strangers coming into the town could get refreshment. But in 921 how many places were there sufficient coffee-houses? In his own town there had been one coffee-house started; but he feared it would only exist by charitable contributions. If he found coffeehouses flourished in Liverpool and Birmingham, and other places, and were capable of affording refreshment to voters coming into the town, he should be inclined to support the measure. He found that in many cases coffee-houses had been closed on Sundays, because the promoters felt that if they opened their establishments on the Sunday, they would supply the publicans with a good argument against them; they would enable the publicans to say—"You are carrying on an agitation against us in order to put money in your own pockets." He trusted that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfred Lawson) had any influence with coffeehouse people, he would cause them to open their establishments on the Sundays, and endeavour to attract people from the public-houses. He was glad of having the opportunity of protesting, under the circumstances, against places of refreshment being closed on polling days, and of protesting also against coffee-houses being shut up on the Sunday.

§ MR. WHITLEY
said, that if this Bill were passed at 2 o'clock in the morning, great consternation would be created in the city he represented. However he loved the cause of Temperance, he could not but look with great suspicion upon a Bill which would close public-houses in Liverpool on election days. London was excepted from the provisions of the Bill; but why should that be? It would be a shameful thing that people who arrived in Liverpool from America, and other parts of the world, on an election day should be only able to get bread and water. He trusted that the second reading of a Bill of this importance would not be pressed at that time of the night. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that clauses such as this Bill contained were very proper ones to introduce in a Corrupt Practices Bill; but he was convinced that to pass a Bill closing public-houses simply because an election was proceeding, would be detrimental to the truest interests of the country. Holding this opinion, he begged to move that the House do now adjourn.

§ MR. TOMLINSON
seconded the Motion.

§ COLONEL ALEXANDER
said, that, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the Bill, he should move that the debate be now adjourned. It was too bad to expect the House to proceed with a Bill of this character at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning.