Commons Sitting of 3 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Commons Protection, &c. [63], put off; Sale of Liquors on Sunday [78], debate adjourned; Custody of Infants* [93].
Committee—Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* [37]—R.P.

TRAMWAYS (METROPOLIS) BILLS.
Ordered, That the Promoters of any of the Tramways (Metropolis) Bills introduced in this or the last Session and which are now before Parliament shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament.
Ordered, That the Promoters of any such Bill intending to suspend any further proceedings thereon, may give notice of such their intention in the Private Bill Office, not Inter than the twentieth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two.
Ordered, That the money deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders or any Resolution of this House in respect of such Bills shall thereupon be returned to the depositors.
Ordered, That the Promoters of each such Bill may on or before the thirty-first day of December next, deposit in the Private Bill Office an Estimate (signed by the person making the same) of the expense of the undertaking under the Bill (or so much thereof as the Promoters may determine to proceed with in the next Session of Parliament), and previously to the fifteenth day of January next deposit a sum not less than four per centum on the amount of such Estimate with the Court of Chancery in England.
Ordered, That not later than three clear days after the next meeting of Parliament each Bill, the proceedings whereon shall have been suspended as aforesaid, may be deposited in the Private Bill Office in the form required by the Standing Orders, with a Declaration signed by the agent annexed thereto, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect (except where any of the proposed works with which the Promoters do not intend to proceed in the ensuing Session have been omitted from the Bill) as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended at the last stage of its proceeding in the House in the present Session or in the Session of 1871.
Ordered, That such Bills, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, as having been duly deposited, with such Declaration annexed, may be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office upon the Table of the House in the next Session of Parliament.
Ordered, That in respect of every Bill so laid upon the Table, the Petition for the Bill and the Order of leave to bring in the same in the present Session or in the Session of 1871 shall be read, and thereupon such Petition shall be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, who shall forthwith report to the House whether or not the Promoters have made such deposit with the Court of Chancery in England as aforesaid; and upon the Examiners reporting that such deposit has been made the Bill shall be read a first time and a second time, and referred to a Select Committee or otherwise dealt with as the House shall order.
Ordered, That all Petitions presented in the Session of 1871 or in the present Session against any such Bill, and which stood referred to the Committee on such Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament."—(Mr. Arthur Peel.)

COMMONS PROTECTION, &C. BILL.
(Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Morrison.)

[BILL 63.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time," said: Sir, the "Commons Protection Bill" is so named by a mere mistake which occurred in the printing office of this House. It is all but a verbal copy of the Bill of last Session called the Public Lands Bill. The long title—which is in both Bills the same—gives a far more accurate impression of the nature of the Bill than does the short. It describes it as "a Bill to provide for the better security of the Rights of the Public in Lands and Commons, and for the beneficial management of public Lands and Commons." The Preamble is the key to the reasons which have led to the Bill being brought before the House. It states that a large part of the lands of England have become vested in corporations for purposes more or less public in their nature; that such lands are often not administered with due economy and profit; that, from the absence of constant supervision, some such lands, common rights, and rights of way have been withdrawn from public and converted to private uses; and that the concurrent management of such lands, where lying together, would afford means for great public improvements. With regard to the first portion of the case, it is impossible accurately to assess the amount of land that is at present vested in corporations. We should, I think, be justified in assuming that much more than what the Bill implies by the phrase "a large part;"—indeed, a vast proportion of the land of England—belongs to corporations. It was stated in 1863 by the present Prime Minister that the income tax on the property of the endowed charities alone would—if paid—amount to £100,000 a-year; which would mean that the income of those charities was £4,000,000. The income of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and of the colleges of those Universities, has, I believe, been estimated at £500,000, chiefly derived from land. The landed property of London Companies, and of the Church, is of vast extent. The Returns as to charitable endowments of the smaller kind which
584
have lately been laid upon the Table of the House show, for instance, that in the county of Kent alone there are 14,000 acres belonging to Kentish charities—that is, without including lands belonging to Kentish charities in other counties, and without including lands situate in Kent and belonging to the charities of other counties. Almost all of North London and almost all of South London belongs to charities, and the value of the public lands of England has been set as high as £500,000,000. With reference to the second statement of the Preamble—namely, that these lands are for the most part not administered with due economy and profit, I think there will be no difference of opinion. It is undoubtedly true that some of them are administered with strict economy and with much profit; but I think no one will contend that as a whole, or even in general, they are so administered. But there is another statement in the Preamble which is capable of easy proof—that these lands are not administered with due regard to the public interest. Not to go far for an example, I would refer to statements lately made within these walls with regard to the Finsbury Prebend Estate. A complete contradiction was given on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), to the charges made by the medical officer of Shoreditch. But The Times of the 13th May returned to the subject, and, after going into much detail, spoke as follows:—
"It seems plain that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not enter upon possession of this great estate with any definite policy to guide them in its management, or with any just idea of the magnitude of the interests at stake. They have done nothing which was not strictly within their right; but they have failed to show either the intelligence or the public spirit which might be fairly expected from trustees for the public."
So much for the present management of the public lands. The third statement which it is my duty to make good is that, from the absence of constant supervision, some lands have been withdrawn from public and converted to private uses. This, again, is a statement which no one who is acquainted with the subject will controvert. If, however, there be need for examples, I would point to the gradual swallowing up of the public rights in the lands of Dartmoor, by the action of the Duchy of Cornwall, without the

585
sanction of this House. In the Reports, too, of the Charity Commissioners there are many cases given in which lands and rent-charges appear from, documents in their possession to have been granted which cannot now be found or identified, and are lost to that public use for which they were designed. An account of the Prison Charities of the City, printed in 1870, states a singular case of the loss of charitable lands. The report is in the following words:—
"Certain tenements near Paul's Wharf in the parishes of St. Benet and St. Peter were left by John Fuller in 1592 for poor prisoners. In 1780, the Society for the Relief of Prisoners—for small debts—filed an information against the lessees of the property, no rents having been applied for the prisoners since 1764. An enquiry was directed to find who was the heir-at-law to the last trustee, in order to get new trustees appointed. The matter was neglected until 1862, when the solicitors of the Attorney General were advised that some one had no doubt acquired an adverse title by long possession, and that it would be useless to take any proceedings to recover."
Thus much have I said of special reasons for legislation. I next would come to speak of the particular form of legislation, which it is that we propose. The Preamble of the Bill sets forth that the concurrent management and disposition of public lands that lie together would be for the public advantage, and it instances the case of lands in London as an example of what is meant. We might compare what has been done by Lord Westminster in Pimlico and what has been neglected, which, under this Bill, might easily be effected, upon the vast charitable estates of Finsbury, by the concurrent management of charitable lands. One fourth of the whole area of London is in public hands. I consider it fortunate that the House will have the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) on this occasion. I believe that the hon. Member is treasurer of the Foundling Hospital, and as such must be well acquainted with the large estates of that institution. The trustees of the Foundling Hospital have 40 acres of land in perhaps the most central part of London, including all the streets and houses between Russell Square on the west, Gray's Inn Road on the east, Regent Square on the north, and Great Ormond Street on the south. It comprises many squares, streets, courts and mews, let on about 200 different leases, most of which will expire in about 20 years
586
time. The ground-rents are upwards of £5,000 a-year, and the value of the estate was estimated 40 years ago at upwards of £50,000 a-year. From the increase in the value of property in the midst of London, it will probably be worth £100,000 a-year when the leases fall in. Many of these smaller streets, courts, and mews might be greatly improved in the accommodation they would afford as dwellings. No doubt, many of these leases could be advantageously purchased for the short residue of the term, and the sites applied to improved dwellings with vast social advantages, as well as greater profit to the institution. The Committee of the Foundling Hospital, with the responsibility of administering wisely these large funds, could not be expected to embark in any schemes of public improvement. The overseers under whom the estate would be placed by the present Bill would not be limited to improvements on this property alone. The Foundling Hospital estate nearly touches on the property of several other wealthy institutions; near it are the estates of the Tonbridge School, the Aldenham School, Seckford Hospital, and many others. The powers thus united would afford means of metropolitan improvement of incalculable value, which could never be obtained by a multitude of separate proprietors acting without concert, if not in hostility to one another. The first action of this Bill would be to startle those who have not hitherto been interested in the subject, by making known the extent of the lands over which public rights exist. As Mr. Hare put the case in an article which appeared in The Fortnightly Review, the public wants, first information and then access—a knowledge of the property it possesses, and then an opportunity of competing on fair terms for the occupation of these estates in a competition in which no prejudices, no private interests, and no personal favour will be allowed to prevail, and in dealing with which there shall be no place for any other than the single object of the public good. We might point to the management of the Greenwich Hospital Estates by John Grey of Dilston, as explained in Mrs. Butler's life of her father. That is the model which in this Bill we have taken for imitation. The Bill directs the administrative bodies of the public lands, within each district, to elect an

587
overseer for the management of these lands as one estate, and it then goes on to lay down the duties of the overseer. The district contemplated by the framers of the Bill would be of such a size as would allow of its being covered in a morning's ride from the office of the overseer at the centre. The overseer's first and not least important duty would be to prepare a new Domesday Book for his district, with a view to the preservation for the future, and to the concurrent management of all public lands within it. When he had got his district mapped out it would become his duty to disseminate the knowledge he had obtained, and next to administer the public lands under his charge for the benefit both of the corporations directly, and of the public indirectly but ultimately interested. I believe that the result would be that by management, both skilled and concurrent, the corporations themselves would derive far greater advantage from their lands, on the average, than they do at present; and that on the other hand, the public, now wholly ignored in the management of these lands, would, for the first time, have security that their interests would no longer be neglected. The overseer might be partly paid by a percentage on the rents made over by him to the corporations, and this would ensure his due attention to the interests of these bodies, by whom, moreover, he would have been elected. He would, too, relieve the corporations from expense, for most of them possess small detached properties in different places, and even in many counties. On the other hand, the overseer would have to report to Government, and his reports would be of a public nature—provisions which would probably be found sufficient to secure his attention to the public interest. It would be his duty to encourage the occupation of the lands themselves—other conditions being equal—by the largest number of tenants; and the Bill directs him also to consider the public interest in the matter of roads, drainage, irrigation, and public health. We think it desirable that as large a number of persons as possible should have an interest in the soil. We believe that by this scheme, which touches no private property, which affects only land held for public purposes by trustees, and which offends no principle of political
588
economy, we offer the only safe means for enabling the poor to compete on equal terms, so far as their means allow, for the occupation of land with the rich. Offering, then, as we do, this security for the management of public lands in the public interest, we think it only fair to put an end at the same time to the prohibition of the dedication of lands to public uses. The logic of these restrictions is destroyed should the first part of the Bill pass into law. There can no longer be any danger to the State in the holding of lands in mortmain when you have provided for their management in the public interest. When you have done so, it becomes an injury to the poorer classes of the community that you should continue to place impediments in the way of the dedication to their use of lands. The mortmain laws were never passed for their economical, but for their political and social effects. What cause can you assign for so gross an interference with the public freedom as the prevention by Act of Parliament of the leaving of lands by will for public purposes? I can understand either of two views upon this point—either that you should discourage altogether the existence of endowments, upon the principle that when it is of public interest that something should be done, the State should do it; or that—and to this principle I should be the rather prepared to give adhesion—you should say, there are many objects deserving of public aid which may with advantage to the people be endowed from private sources, provided that the objects and management be submitted to State revision from time to time. So much for the provisions of the Bill. I will now turn to the consideration of certain special reasons why legislation is desirable at the present time. This Bill is an experimental proposal—a middle way between that advocated by those who aim at making all land public, and that of those who wish that every acre should be in private hands. This experiment we propose to try upon lands which are already public. If the experiment is to be tried at all, surely it should be tried first upon such lands as these. What has been the objection raised against State management of land? That State management will be inefficient or corrupt. But the management of these public lands is already, from the absence of personal interest in

589
the managers, very much, in the position in which State management would be when at its worst. Even if the experiment of State management were to fail, its failure upon these lands could hardly give us worse results than those against which we have already to complain. We propose an experiment which may logically receive support as such even from, those who do not believe that it would succeed. We ask only, at all events, that the experiment should be tried. The State already controls one great Department at least as well as it could be worked by persons privately interested in its success. In other countries, not more pure than this, the railways have been placed under State control with much advantage. Under this Bill, the State would not—in the ordinary sense of the word—manage the public lands at all. Its province would almost be limited to the receiving of the rents. The strongest attack that has been as yet directed against State management of land was that made last year by Mr. Newmarch; but his only proof that State management would be corrupt was that management by the Ecclesiastical Commission, by colleges, by companies, by corporations, and by the Court of Chancery is inefficient or corrupt. He asked whether the promoters of this Bill had heard of "Bleak House;" but we answer that "Bleak House" is our case. Here are great properties, we say, mismanaged at the present time. We cannot well make matters worse if you let us try upon these admittedly mismanaged properties, the experiment of State control. Those who are the most desirous of keeping land in private hands, if they are right in believing that State management will fail should look with pleasure upon the trial of the experiment by us. If the failure prove to be as complete as they expect that very failure will give to them, security far more solid than any which they now possess. There are many incidental, but at the same time great advantages of this Bill upon which I will not dwell. There are others who are far better acquainted than I can pretend to be, with its bearing upon co-operative tilling of the soil. My hon. Friend who sits for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) may perhaps give the House the benefit of his great experience upon this point. There are other advantages
590
of a less important character which—although very real—need not be dwelt upon at the present time. The only one of these that I will mention is the value that would belong to the public lands as a means for giving scientific instruction to the people. Mr. Hare once pointed out that by utilizing in our schools the facts about public land, of which by this very Bill we propose to you the collection, we should be providing for the people that practical training in the affairs of life which the wealthy draw from the management of their own estates. The only other point upon which I will at present speak is one to which already I have referred. It is our proposal fearlessly to repeal the laws which impede the dedication of land to public uses, and to urge the House to promote rather than to retard the disposition of individuals to convert private into public property. The Committee of 1851 reported that the law of mortmain is systematically evaded by the creation of secret trusts. Our proposal for its repeal must, however, not be looked at as standing by itself, but as a part only of our scheme. The law of mortmain may or may not have been a necessary law in the past; it may or may not be needed at the present time; but it cannot be contended that it will be anything but an encumbrance for the future if you pass the first portion of this Bill. It is idle to pretend that you need this law to prevent the exercise of undue influence over persons in their last extremity. How is it that you do so well without any such special law concerning death-bed dispositions of property of other kinds? Apart from any such statute, you have an ample protection against improper wills. Whether you repeal the law or vote for its continuance, a will is invalid if obtained by fraud, or by "undue influence"—a phrase to which the widest interpretation has been given. The operation of the present law of mortmain is capricious in the extreme, and the result has been a bewildering confusion of decisions and litigation—wasteful beyond all precedent. I have yet to hear the arguments by which can be justified the distinction made by the Mortmain Acts between land and money, and the grounds upon which, if public control were once secured, you would continue to prevent the nation benefiting by even the death-

591
bed liberality of the individual. It is in what I humbly conceive to be the public interest that I move the second reading of this Bill.
MR. MORRISONseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
MR. GREGORYsaid, the hon. Baronet had, in opening his case, confidently affirmed that no man would dare to doubt the fact stated in the second paragraph in the Preamble of the Bill, that the lands in the hands of large corporations were badly managed. He (Mr. Gregory) ventured to challenge that allegation. He maintained that the lands in the hands of great corporations, so far from being mismanaged, were administered very successfully. He had some experience in this matter, and he could say that there were no lands in a better state of cultivation, or on which the tenantry were in a better condition. The hon. Baronet had stated that the Foundling Hospital had an estate of about 40 acres in this metropolis, producing a rental of about £5,000 a-year, being let on long leases on ground-rents. He was treasurer to the Hospital, and he sat every week as a member of the committee for the management of its affairs. He and almost every gentleman on the committee were resident on the estate, and passed over it nearly every day of their lives, and therefore they should know something about it. Besides, they had an inspector whose duty it was to report every Saturday on any dilapidations or changes that might have occurred, and to make suggestions. They had also a surveyor, and they found no difficulty whatever in dealing with the estate. It was true that at the end of 20 years the leases would fall in; but he was afraid the rental would be nothing like what the hon. Baronet had stated. The committee were contemplating a scheme for the future management of the estate when the leases should fall in; they might realize an income of £20,000 a-year, but it would not be until a considerable time had elapsed. As the hon. Baronet had taken the Foundling Hospital estate as a test in support of his Bill, he begged to meet him on the point, and to leave it to the House to decide whether he had made out his
592
case. One great objection he had to the Bill was that it proposed to supersede the present managing Bodies by a new officer called an "overseer," and he would invite the attention of the Members of the Local Government Board to what they had to do—namely, to determine the qualifications of the gentlemen who were to act in that capacity. But who were to compose the constituency? That was a dilemma from which he hoped some of the hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill would extricate him. Were the commons to be represented in the election of these overseers? He could not regard the proposed inquiry into all estates as short of a revival of the Star Chamber, because all interested were put on the rack at the instance of the hon. Baronet. But perhaps the most extraordinary clause was that which gave powers for the unlimited purchase of land. Speaking from a solicitor's point of view, nothing would more benefit his profession, and therefore he hoped he would get credit for the most disinterested motives when he opposed that clause. In conclusion, he was constrained to move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Gregory.)
MR. MORRISON,in supporting the Motion for the second reading, said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill, that property belonging to great corporations was not nearly so well managed as that which was in the hands of private owners. Let them go into any tumble-down district of that great metropolis and inquire who were the owners, and they would generally find that the property was held in mortmain. He had always taken a great interest in the co-operative movement, one of the difficulties in the way of which was the existence of prejudices of a social kind which existed against working men in trying to acquire land. To a certain extent there was an honest assumption that working men were not able to carry out these operations, and it was notorious that a feeling of antagonism was springing up against the spread of co-operative associations which might in future seriously hamper their

593
operations, and which, it was desirable in the public interest to remove. In answer to that objection, however, he would say that the Bill did not propose to give to them any advantage which private persons did not equally possess. It should be recollected that the overseer would not have the power of himself to let the land or other property to any individual. He would only have the power of recommending individuals to the Boards, and it would be for them to decide on the matter. But if the Boards dissented from the recommendation of the overseer, they would be bound to give their reasons; and if the overseer suspected a job, he would have the right of appeal to the Local Government Board. The hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Gregory) said he viewed the clause which gave the overseers full power to inquire into estates as a sort of revival of the Star Chamber. The hon. Member forgot that Acts of Parliament and legal tribunals which were constituted in bad times Courts of Inquiry of that kind were obsolete. But all the clause practically did was to confer on the overseers various powers of inquiry which had been conferred from time to time on the Charity Commissioners, and to enable them to take the place of the present Governing Bodies of charities. There was a special reason for considering at the present time the question of the management of charity lands, because there was a large amount of property which, under the Endowed Schools Commission, was being transferred from the hands of those who had held it hitherto. The object of the first part of the Bill was to substitute skilful and professional management for management by Governing Boards, which was generally admitted to be very inefficient, especially when dealing with landed property scattered over wide districts, for the practice against which the first Charity Commission was appointed to guard—namely, that of allowing charity lands gradually to disappear—had not yet entirely ceased. With regard to the statute of mortmain, he admitted that that law had in other times been of the greatest possible value; but he thought that the danger which Parliament had formerly to guard against had now passed away, and the giving of land for public uses should be encou-
594
raged in every possible way, because if, at any time, evil arose therefrom, Parliament would be able to put a stop to it. They must not forget the Socialistic cries raised, he regretted to say, with regard to land and other subjects, and the cry which was getting up for the impossible theory of the nationalization of the land of England. It would, however, be of great benefit if, taking their place in a sort of half-way house, they could meet some of the demands coming from outside. He should deprecate the management of the public lands by the State, but the present Bill would create a class of officials who would have the advantage of being disconnected with all party. The Bill proposed the appointment of overseers of public lands as registrars, stewards, surveyors, and managers for the administering Bodies, and as those administering Bodies would no longer benefit by the profits, it could not but happen that the property would be much improved by the expenditure which must of necessity be laid out upon it. Another provision was that these overseers should not, unless for exceptional cause, have a greater area to superintend than 200 square miles, and the Local Government Board was to determine the qualifications of the candidates for the office of overseer, who were to be elected by the administering Bodies, as well as the area and extent of the several constituencies. It must not be forgotten that land would rise and money would fall in value, and they had no right, in order to save themselves a little trouble, to allow property which was destined to grow to an enormous value to be disposed of or lost. It was principally with a view to prevent such a result that he had been induced to place his name on the back of the Bill.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that having taken a great interest in the protection of commons, he must express his regret to see the title of the Commons' Protection Bill applied to so crude a measure as the present. He admitted that public lands were worse managed than private lands; but the hon. Mover of the Bill, who stated himself to be as thoroughly convinced of the mischiefs of the general system of the management of public lands, proposed to repeal the Mortmain Act, and by removing the restrictions contained in that Act to cause the public lands, the management

595
of which he denounced as execrable, to become much larger still in extent. What was the general scheme they were called on to discuss? It was difficult to make out what were to be the constituencies for the first election of the overseers under the Bill, for the interference of the Local Government Board was required for defining the area and other particulars of every such constituency. But it was still more absurd that each of the constituencies obtained with all this difficulty was never to act but once, since every vacancy among the Overseers was to be filled up by the nomination of the Local Government Board. Thus, the ardent and radical Reformers by whom this measure was brought forward, proposed to hand over all the public lands in every district to the almost uncontrolled management of an officer selected by the Government. Then, again, in case of difference between any overseer and an administering Body as to the acceptance of tenants of public lands, the matter was to be decided upon by the Local Government Board, though it was difficult to understand how that Board could acquire sufficient knowledge to judge between the overseers and the administering Bodies scattered all over the country. His hon. Friend declared that it was not in the least intended to give a preference in granting leases to co-operative Bodies, but the 15th clause of the Bill gave them a preference in express terms. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Morrison) was somewhat indignant at the observation of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) that the Bill proposed to give to the overseers the powers of the High Commission Court under King Charles I., and thought that this could not be, because those powers had long been repealed. But this only showed that the promoters of the Bill had not read their own clauses, one of which (the 23rd) would give to the overseers all the powers of inquiry, not only which are now, but also which have heretofore been possessed by any Commission or Commissioners. It was difficult to devise words more apt for reviving the powers of Charles I's. High Commission. The Bill was altogether a most ill-considered measure, and the House could not do better than to agree to the Amendment.
LORD HENLEYsaid, that having been asked by some of his constituents to sup-
596
port the Bill on the ground that it would facilitate the acquisition of land by the working classes, he had looked into it, and was obliged to tell them that it seemed to go in the opposite direction, for, as the hon. Member for Sussex had shown, it would prevent land coming into the market. Even supposing it would facilitate the acquisition of small holdings, it was doubtful whether the subdivision of land would operate here as well as in France, where small holders managed their affairs with greater prudence than he was afraid could be looked for in England. In this country land seldom came into the market in sufficiently small lots to enable working men to purchase it; and when it did it fetched a price equal to 35 or 40 years' purchase, and paying less than 3 per cent, which placed it out of the reach of the working man, who wanted a greater return for his money.
MR. WHALLEYsupported the Bill, maintaining that all they had to do with at present was its Preamble, which truly asserted that there was great abuse in the management of lands devised for charitable purposes. He maintained that the Communistic suggestion of the noble Lord about the division of the land of England into small portions was not within the four corners of the Bill. It was most important that the land of the country should be under the notice of the public eye, and under the control of its hand, and he did not think any greater service could be rendered than by giving a Bill like this a fair consideration.
MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he would at once admit that land devoted to public purposes had not been fitly managed, and the accounts had not been properly rendered, or made public to the extent that they ought to have been. He thought, therefore, that it was desirable that greater facilities should be afforded for securing the better management of charity lands, and for the right rendering of the accounts. But the Bill went beyond these requirements. He thought the Bill objectionable because it started with the supposition that the gift in mortmain of all corporate property was of necessity bad in principle, and then by repealing the statute of George II., it went on to facilitate the acquirement of such property to a far greater extent than it existed before. No doubt the Bill was framed with a good design, though it

597
contained so many things objectionable. For instance, no one could deny that greater publicity with regard to the management of public land was desirable; but the 23rd clause gave too much inquisitorial power to the overseer whom it was proposed to appoint; and it never could have been expected that the House would pass the next clause, which gave him power to purchase land on public account, and to pay for it with any money in the hands of the Charity Commissioners, without regard to the locality or particular charity to which such money belonged. Anything more inconsistent he could not conceive. He did not think it desirable that wherever laxity existed they should be called upon to appoint a public officer to remedy the shortcomings of local authorities. The Charity Commissioners had power to undertake investigations, if set in motion by an expression of local opinion; and the misfortune was, that sufficient interest was not taken in the management of public property. If the Bill were capable of Amendment in Committee, he would vote for it; but, with all the crudities and inconsistencies there were on the face of it, he was obliged to oppose it.
MR. LEEMANsaid, he hoped none of the hon. Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill had anything to do with the drafting of it, for it seemed as if the object of the draftsman had been to take care that there should be no connection between the Preamble and the enactments. Even the title was a delusion and a snare.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the promoters of the Bill were not responsible for the printed title, because that which they furnished to the House printers was "Public Lands and Commons Bill."
MR. LEEMANcontinued by saying that the full title was no better than the shorter one. He asked the House to listen to the wholesale character of the Bill. From the title, as furnished by the hon. Baronet, and the speech which he had made, it would be supposed that it referred mainly to the common lands of the country; but when the 1st clause came to be explained by the interpretation clause, it was found that the Bill applied to all lands under the superintendence of Parliament, under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Public Works, the Ecclesiastical or
598
other Commissioners, lands vested in any corporation or trustees, or any other person or persons, for ecclesiastical, collegiate, municipal, charitable, or other public uses or purposes, or held in perpetuity for any use not private. Well, that was about the most modest proposition that he had ever heard in that House. The hon. Gentleman proposed that an overseer be appointed for every 200 square miles to take charge of all the public lands within that area. As a member of a municipal body, and speaking, he was sure, the sentiments of the other municipal bodies of the country, he did not ask the interference of the hon. Baronet in reference to the management of the property belonging to those Bodies; and of all the propositions he had ever heard, that which asked that an overseer should be appointed to take under his control the whole of the public lands, including the ecclesiastical lands of this country, was the most extraordinary. He must tell the hon. Baronet that the land managed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been well managed by them, and no overseer of the hon. Baronet's appointing would manage it better than it was managed now. The municipalities which had large landed property, such as Liverpool and Leeds, and many other large towns, had never asked for this Socialistic Bill. It was a great mistake to say that there was no publicity in reference to the management of the property aimed at by the Bill, and the hon. Gentlemen who drew it up could have known nothing whatever of the mode in which public property was managed. It had been said there were abuses with regard to charity lands. Well, there was already a tribunal to which to appeal; there was a body of Charity Commissioners, who had dealt with these abuses in a great many instances, and the hon. Member could surely never have read the Reports of the Charity Commissioners to that House. If he had, the hon. Member would have found that those Commissioners had stated in their last Report that they could act only when put in motion by local action, and that it would be desirable that they have power of their own motion to investigate abuses. Again, let the House look at the power which, this overseer was to have over the property of the whole public bodies of the

599
country. He was to be steward, receiver of rents, and manager of the whole estates over his 200 square miles. He was to have a commission, the amount of which was left blank in the Bill. He was to have charge of the whole of the properties, and he was to have power, without asking the authority of the particular locality, to purchase any land which in his judgment was for the benefit of the existing property of the trust, and he was to pay for it out of the Government or other securities held in trust for any charity or charities under the provisions of the Trusts Act of 1853. One could not conceive that any person could make such a monstrous proposition as that the overseer should purchase land, and pay for it out of charity funds belonging to somebody else. In short, the whole Bill was so full of these extraordinary propositions that, with very great deference to the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench (the Home Secretary and the Attorney General), he wondered they had had the patience to listen for such a length of time to the discussion; and that they had not risen long ago to put their foot on the Bill, which was one of the most monstrous, in his judgment, that could have been proposed to the House of Commons. The powers in the body of the Bill did not carry out the Preamble, so far as it purported to give to the working classes facilities for the purchase of small quantities of land, but really went to tie up all public property in the hands of this new creation of the hon. Baronet—this notable overseer. He could not but regard the Bill as a phantom which would in no way benefit the working classes, and as a measure which the House ought at once to reject as utterly mischievous and unworkable.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that after the pointed appeal which had been made to the Treasury bench he could not remain longer silent. He would, therefore, try the endurance of the House no longer, though he should have regretted to have risen earlier and deprived the House of the enjoyment of listening to the speech just made. He very much regretted that the hon. Baronet and those who were associated with him had thought fit to bring forward such a crude, idle, and destructive measure before the House. He did not feel any political or party gratitude to per-
600
sons who brought forward a very serious and important and interesting subject in a manner, to say the least, so very ill-judged. The preservation of open spaces for the enjoyment of the people and the maintenance of rights of way were matters which it was creditable to bring before, and which in themselves were well worthy of, the attention of the Legislature; but it only brought discredit on subjects which ought not to be discredited when they were handled in a manner of which the Bill gave an example. He was perfectly sure that the persons who drew the Bill must have been persons of extreme ignorance of legislation. To appropriate a saying of a person gone to his rest some time ago, if the hon. Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill had read the Bill once they they had never done what they were inviting the House to do, and that was to read it a second time. The first objection he would state to the Bill was connected with the interpretation clause. By the definition there given of the word "lands" all the docks in the country, the London Docks, the Mersey Docks, and all others, would be transferred to the overseers. Could anything show more successfully the carelessness with which the Bill had been drawn, than that not only the docks, but all the public property of the country, should pass into the hands of the overseers? Another objection, which was destructive of any serious consideration of the Bill was, that as its real effect was to make the Government hold all the public land in the country in its own possession, it would soon happen that one Department of the Government would have in its hand and under its control by far the largest landed estate in the country. Now, was that a matter which could be tolerated? It would be a dangerous thing even so far as the administration of the property itself was concerned. Certain other subjects well deserving of attention did not come within the Bill at all, such as commons, with lords of the manor having large private rights over them, rights of way, and the like. The last point which he would mention as meriting consideration was, that it was proposed that in any question of right of way, all the overseers had to do was to stick up a notice and refer the matter to the Attorney General, who was to maintain the right of way at the expense

601
of the county rates. There were other objections to the Bill which he need not enumerate. The measure had evidently been very little considered by its promoters, and had been produced in such an unworkmanlike shape, that the Government could not allow it to be read a second time,
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, that it had not been thought necessary to have the approval of corporations to the Bill, because it had been advocated on public grounds, and it had been shown that the lands in the hands of corporations were mismanaged. They might as well expect an intimidating landlord to ask for the Ballot on behalf of the people, as to expect corporations to ask for a Bill like this. He should certainly go to a division, believing that the principle would come up for discussion again before long.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 184: Majority 167.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Second Reading put off for three months.

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
(Mr. Birley, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Robert Fowler, Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

[BILL 78.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BIRLEY,in moving "That the Bill be now read a second time," said, he was not very sanguine of success; but still he felt convinced that the movement in favour of the closing of public-houses on Sundays had made great progress out-of-doors, and that there was a strong impression in favour of it among many Members of that House. In former debates reference had been made to the Report of the Select Committee appointed in 1868, on the Motion of the late Mr. John Abel Smith, to inquire into this subject. That Committee did no doubt report that, considering the present system had worked satisfactorily, they were of opinion that further legislation of a restrictive character was not required; but it was his (Mr. Birley's) opinion that if the same hon. Gentlemen
602
were again to consider the question, they would not bring downstairs such a Resolution as that, for it was the general conviction that further restrictive legislation was imperatively needed. There was abundant evidence of the desire on the part of the public at large for the closing of the public-houses and beerhouses on Sundays. They heard it emphatically expressed by the magistrates, by the ministers of religion, and by the people at large. Nay, more, there was a strong feeling in favour of it among the keepers of public-houses themselves. He would not say the majority of them were in favour of it; but, at all events, he would say that there were as many in favour of it as were opposed to it. There were, however, some hon. Members who said that, however desirable the measure might be, it was inapplicable to the present state of society in this country—that it could not stand—that it would not be submitted to by the people of England. He confessed that there was some difficulty in the question from that point of view; but it could all be easily overcome, if they would only trust to the good sense and judgment of the people themselves. Had he not reliance on that, he would not be a party to any of the Bills now before the House for interfering with the sale of intoxicating liquors. It must be on the fair expression of the feeling of the people, and on that only, that any restriction like this ought to be imposed upon them. He was willing to admit that the very rigid-ness of the rule of universal closing, which he advocated, in itself constituted a difficulty, as rules which might not be suitable to one place would not be suitable to another. It might be that some places were ripe for legislation of this kind, while others were not. He often wished they could go back to the old Court Leets, and that they might be permitted, in their different manors, to enact by-laws for the good conduct of all residing on the manor. It seemed to him that there was, in the jurisdiction of those Courts, an admirable combination of authority and of local self-government, and that drunkenness was kept down by the free voice of the people, which was much better than the hard iron rule of the police. From the old records it was quite clear that the management and control of public-houses and inns frequently engaged the atten-

603
tion of those tribunals, and it seemed to him there was greater temperance in those days than was the case now. He did not attribute that to greater purity or virtue, for there were other causes a work. In the first place, there was a greater supervision with respect not only to the sale, but to the quality of the beer. In the next place, there was very little spirits consumed; and lastly, the people had not much money to spend He found that in one case, where a man was fined 6d. for an assault, on it being presented that he was intoxicated at the time he committed the assault, he wasfurther fined 5s., so that his drunkenness was considered a ten-fold aggravation of the offence. He did not, however, wish it to be supposed that that was the proportion which it was intended to establish between the one offence and the other; but, at all events, it showed that they were then prepared to inflict heavy penalties for the offence of drunkenness. He would now direct attention to the state of the law in the colonies on this subject. In Melbourne the closing of public-houses on Sunday had led to the most beneficial, moral, and social results. As a confirmation of that fact, he would read the following letter from a gentleman who had filled a responsible position in that colony:—
"I know well what scenes disgraced our streets in Melbourne before the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, and I know well also the order and prosperity now observed therein. I have travelled through most parts of Europe, have traversed the United States, and have a fair knowledge of Great Britain; but in no place have I seen so great an amount of sobriety, cheerfulness, and rational enjoyment on the Sunday, without the opening of hotels, as in Melbourne. In spite of the assertion that drink is sold within closed doors, and that no pressure is particularly exerted to enforce the law, there is public spirit enough in that enlightened community to recognize the value of the Act, and sufficient firmness to maintain it. Apart from the mere religious question, it is believed quite possible to enjoy life on Sunday without the sale of alcoholic drinks. Men take their wives and children with them for recreation on part of that day, instead of selfish indulgence, as in other places, at the public-house."
In Canada, too, the law worked well, and there the public-houses were closed all through Sunday. It was the same in Newfoundland. In Bermuda, the tavern-keepers could supply intoxicating liquors on Sundays to travellers and guests, and that not separately, but in conjunction with other refreshments. In New Zealand, too, the law of Sunday
604
closing was in force, and worked well. He should have thought that Melbourne might not have been beforehand with this country in the course it had taken in this matter. There was another Bill with the same object now before the House—for the prevention of the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland on Sunday. That Bill had not hitherto met with any direct opposition. One of the greatest objections that had been raised against the passing of the Bill was, that it was of that class of legislation which indicated that "there is one law for the rich and another for the poor;" and it was argued that while the rich man had his "club" to go to on the Sunday, the poor man had not. He ventured to say that very few of that class who had clubs went to and used them on Sundays; while, on the other hand, the public-houses were frequented by large numbers of the labouring classes on that day, many of whom habitually indulged to excess in them. He was not one of those who advocated the abridgement of the rational enjoyments of the working classes; on the contrary, he would extend them. The public-houses, appropriated to their proper uses, were intended for the supply of necessary refreshment for the working classes; but he did not think it desirable that they should be open on the Sunday. If English working men had their clubs not for indulgence to excess, but as places for resort for necessary refreshment and comfort, there would be no opposition to them. He felt that the objects of the measure which he was now advocating were well worthy the consideration of this House. Let the House consider what was the effect of keeping public-houses open on Sunday. It was a day which, instead of being regarded as a blessing, was by many devoted to excess in drinking, and was thus rendered productive of evil; it was a day on which the hard earnings of the week before were sadly wasted; it was a day on which the excessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors left the labouring man less able to do his work on Monday than he found himself when leaving work on the Saturday evening; and it was a day on which, more than any other day of the week, he should abstain from such excess. He (Mr. Birley) had not thought it necessary to trouble the House either with details of the Bill,

605
or with, statistics that had been before it on former occasions, when the subject was debated; but he felt that in submitting the Bill to the consideration of the House he had done his duty to his constituents and to the country; and he did so, not that he was very sanguine of immediate results, but in the great hope that in the future they should find a united people of all classes willing to apply a remedy to the great evil which the Bill was intended to deal with. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Birley.)
MR. FIELDEN,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he wished to give every credit to the hon. Member who had moved that it be read a second time. With all respect for the hon. Gentleman, however, he looked upon the Bill as a "libel" on the great mass of the labouring people of this country. What the hon. Member was bound to do he had failed to do. When trying to impose restrictions upon the people, what he was bound to do was to prove that a large majority of the people of the country were addicted to drunkenness and indulgence in intoxicating liquors on Sunday. Now, he had not done that. When the hon. Member tried to find facts to fortify his position he failed in his effort. Let the hon. Member say what he liked, anyone who looked at the measure must come to the conclusion that it was an attempt at class legislation, and that it was a Bill that would affect the labouring class alone, and not the upper and middle classes. Why should the labouring man, who was living from hand to mouth, and who had no means of procuring refreshment, be precluded from obtaining what was necessary for him at the public-house? The upper and middle classes throughout the country could have everything they required at home, or at their clubs. But the labouring man had no club, and if that Bill was permitted to pass, the door of the public-house would be shut against him, whilst the rich man would have what he desired at his mansion or his club. He asked the House, was that the way to encourage loyalty in the labouring classes? He maintained that the arguments in support of
606
such legislation as that now proposed came to and meant this—that the labouring classes of this country were so addicted to drunkenness that they could not control their passions; but that had never been proved. He knew that there was a great cry that the Bill was much required; but they knew how the agitation was got up, and how representations were made by a few energetic men, who got up returns contrary to what was actually the case. For instance, he had received that morning from Leeds a memorial that might, for aught he knew, have been intended for presentation to that House, but which was addressed to himself. It spoke strongly of the evils of drunkenness, and was signed by 77 ministers of religion. He had no doubt that those clergymen objected to the present state of the law relating to the system with which the Bill of the hon. Member proposed to deal; but he was satisfied that if they considered the matter, and looked at it carefully, and not from any narrow stand-point, they would draw different conclusions from those to which they had come. He must say that it would be gross tyranny to take the course proposed by the Bill—a course which would deprive the labouring classes of their undoubted right to decide for themselves whether they required refreshment or not. There were one or two points to which he wished to call the attention of the House. There were many working men throughout the country whose places of work were at long distances from the abodes of their families, to whom they could only return home on the Sunday, and ought those labouring people on that day of all others when they are with their families to be deprived of the means of getting a pint of beer? ["No, no!"] Well, he maintained that the Bill of the hon. Member would deprive them of that right. Rich men who agreed with his hon. Friend ought to shut up their wine cellars on Sunday, and thereby set an example of self-denial to the working classes. There was another class of men alluded to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) last year—the men who slept in lodgings, but got their food in public-houses—who were often most valuable workmen. He asked the House what those men were to do if this Bill became law. Where were they to get their dinner and the pint of beer, which, whether that Bill passed

607
or not, they were determined to have? Another most strange thing in regard to that Bill was, that if a man chose to leave his wife and children to take their dinner alone, and walked or took the train five miles into the country, he could get as much beer as he liked. What would be the effect of such a Bill in London? It was not uncommon for gentlemen—and even Members of that House—to go to Greenwich or Richmond on Sundays and dine, and not restrict themselves to the use of water. The great mass of the people whom hon. Members on the opposite side were now flattering, would say—"You pass a measure to prevent us getting our beer—which we have a perfect right to have—and you allow your own Members to go to Greenwich, Richmond, or anywhere beyond five miles, where they can get as much drink as they choose." He was satisfied that they could never, by any enactment on the subject, prevent drinking in this country. Such legislation was opposed to the habits of the people; and if they closed the public-houses to morrow, they would only drive drinking into the back streets and slums. They would not stop it, but they would make it a more discreditable thing than the excess of it was now. What was needed was, to take care that the people should have pure, unadulterated drink. It was not the amount of drink that men took that made them so beastly drunk and produced such scenes in their large towns; because, in other countries, where beer was pure, and where it was largely drunk, there was scarcely any drunkenness. If they were to set to work, and instead of passing these absurd and impracticable measures, take care that the people were not poisoned when they drank the national beverage, they would do more to remove drunkenness than by any other means. The promoters of the Bill seemed to ignore the fact that restraints of this kind had been adopted, and had totally failed and he was surprised that the hon Member had not informed himself of what had been the effect of legislation in times past. Colonel Wilson-Patten's Act was passed in 1854. That Act limited the hours of drinking on Sunday to between one and two and from six to ten. But it worked so hardly and created so much discontent, that in the next year a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into its operation.
608
That Committee reported as follows:—
"Tour Committee are further convinced, from the evidence produced before them, that the Act of last Session restricting the sale of beer and other liquors during certain hours on Sunday has been attended with unnecessary inconvenience to the public, and they therefore feel it to be their duty to recommend to the immediate consideration of the House an Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act, 1854, which will admit of the opening of the licensed houses from one to three and from five to eleven in the afternoon of Sunday."
He would ask the House whether, after the experience of that Act, which only restricted the hours of opening on Sunday by about two hours, they were going to commit, not the same error, but a greater error than was committed on that occasion? They should in these matters be guided by experience, and not by sentiment. The hon. Member had referred to a similar Bill applicable to Ireland; and he (Mr. Fielden) had only to say that he would have taken the same course with regard to that Bill, if the hon. Member who had charge of it had not chosen to talk out his own Bill.
SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN: I did not talk out the Bill. The Speaker interrupted me, and stopped my speech at a quarter to six o'clock.
MR. FIELDENsaid, that that was only another way of putting it. It was common to say that Members talked out their Bill when they talked till a quarter to six, and as the hon. Gentleman knew that he could not speak longer than that, it might be concluded that he talked out his own Bill. With regard to the colonies, they must be very careful before they acted on evidence from them, without knowing the character, habits, and circumstances of the people. In Yorkshire, before he was elected, he remembered that a Permissive Bill man told him that the law regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors worked perfectly well in Maine. He made inquiry of other persons who had travelled in Maine, and who were capable of observing what they saw, and he found that the law was a dead letter, and that anyone could get as much drink as he liked. They must be careful of adopting the legislation of the colonies or other countries, unless they knew all the facts. He believed that if they passed the Bill it would not have the effect which the hon. Member wished it to have, and that it would be looked upon as a piece of class legislation by the labouring people,

609
and he therefore begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this daythreemonths."—(Mr. Joshua Fielden.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had addressed to the House an argument which, for want of a better name, he would call the rob-a-poor-man-of-his-beer argument. Whatever force that argument might have alone, used against the Permissive Bill, he maintained that it had no force and application when addressed to the Bill under discussion. Nine out of ten men who went to public-houses on Sunday went there not for rational enjoyment, not for the purpose of recruiting exhausted nature after a hard day's work, but simply and solely for the purpose of getting fuddled. That was a day on which they could have no work to do. The hon. Member talked a great deal about the hardship which the Bill would inflict on the poor working man who wished to spend the Sunday in the bosom of his family, and who desired to have his jug of beer fresh from the public-house. That was a mere matter of detail, and as one of the promoters of the Bill he was quite willing to insert a provision giving liberty to public-houses to sell beer to be drunk off the premises. It was not against these persons—it was not against the industrious artizan who wished to enjoy his dinner and his jug of beer on Sunday—that the Bill was aimed. It was aimed against a very different class of persons. The Bill was intended to protect those miserable beings whom anyone who had walked through the streets of London, Leeds, or Liverpool must have seen huddled together round the doors of the gin-palace, trying to tear themselves away from the terrible temptation, and hovering like moths round a lighted candle. These were the persons whom the Bill sought to protect against themselves. The hon. Member objected to the Bill that it curtailed the liberty of the individual, but the same thing might be said of any legislation: it was so of the Factory Acts, it was so of the Mines Bill, it was so of the Licensing Bill; in fact, if they
610
pushed the argument to its proper conclusion, they would keep the public-houses open throughout the whole of Sunday, because it was quite possible that a man would feel thirsty between the hours of 11 and 1 or 3 and 5, and wish to slake his thirst at a public-house. All these questions were questions of degree, and the question which they should put to themselves was this—did the paramount interests of society require that these restrictions should be imposed? He did not think hon. Members knew what a great parent of drunkenness in general this Sunday tippling was. A man found himself in possession of a holiday and a week's wages. His home was not very attractive. He had no resources, in the sense in which they used the word. All places of amusement were closed to him. He did not go—and probably had not the clothes to go—to church; but there was one place which was open to him, and that was the public-house. The result was that he acquired a taste for drinking which grew into a permanent habit; and was not that a thing at which it ought to strike by legislation? The hon. Member said that the Bill would not work, but it did work in Scotland. A similar measure worked perfectly well in Glasgow; and according to the evidence of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that city had been actually saved the building of an additional wing to the prison since the Forbes M'Kenzie Act came in force, an argument which was unanswerable to a Scotchman. It was said that the Bill introduced one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that if they shut up public-houses they ought, by parity of reasoning, to shut up clubs. If clubs were used for the same purpose for which public-houses were used, he would be in favour of shutting them not only on Sunday, but every other day in the week. There was, however, no analogy between the two. Men went to public-houses to get drunk. ["No, no!"] Well, they got drunk there; but as a general rule men did not go to club to get drunk. No doubt the effect of the Bill was to introduce a different system for clubs and public-houses; and, under those circumstances, it was most important they should know what were really the opinions of the working classes on the subject. If they went to Wapping and

611
interrogated the intelligent classes there, they would declare by a large majority in favour of the Bill. That would be especially the case with their wives and children, because they knew that it was that habit of Sunday tippling which made the day of rest the blackest day of all the seven—which made it, instead of being a blessing to the working man, fraught with misery in the present, and helpless, hopeless ruin in the future.
MR. R. N. FOWLER: My hon. Friend (Mr. Birley) quoted the testimony of clergymen against Sabbath desecration as a fearful evil. I admit this; but it seems to me that it is quite natural that ministers of religion, from the very nature of their education, should support a Bill like this. The hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden) said we ought not to take the colonies for our example in this respect. If so, then we ought not to take their example in politics and other social questions. I hope the House will consider the vast amount of crime resulting from intemperance, and support the Bill of my hon. Friend.
SIR DOMINIC CORRIGAN: I have not been disappointed in the triumphant defence from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) of the operation of the restrictive law in Scotland. That Act has been in existence for 17 years, and for the last 10 years no Petition has been presented for its repeal. That fact is so triumphant a defence of the measure that I do not wonder that the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden) carefully avoided that part of the question. The hon. Member said drunkenness had diminished on Sundays. Let me read a passage from a Dublin paper, The Freeman's Journal—
"The police courts presented a frightful appearance this (Monday) morning. A great majority of those in attendance bore marks of violence, such as black eyes and broken heads. In the northern division there were 140 cases, and in the southern 114. A person looking at the crowd without knowing the cause would think a great battle had taken place."
[An hon. MEMBER: That was not in England.] In deference to the feelings of English hon. Members, I have not quoted, as I might have done abundantly from English newspapers, for in them I find cases of drunken navvies dashing
612
out the brains of their paramours and murdering their children on Sundays. In Scotland, there were cases quite as bad arising from drunkenness, before the passing of their Bill. Their stock objection against the Bill was that it was a piece of class legislation. It was said—"If you permit a rich man to take his glass of ale or brandy in his club, why should not the poor man be permitted to go into the whisky shop and do the same thing?" There is no analogy between the whisky shop and the club-house? In the club-house, the social position of every member is ascertained before admission, and the club-house is not, like the whisky shop, open to every comer. No one not a member will be served in the club-house, but the whisky shop is open to all—and this indiscriminate admission is, in itself, an incentive to crime. In some portions of Ireland—through the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy—no member of the trade sells strong drink on Sunday, and the effect has been most beneficial. Crime and drunkenness have diminished, and morality and domestic happiness have greatly increased. I should like to see club-houses open for the poor on the same principle as they are established for the rich. It was said, educate the people; but we cannot wait for this. When I see my neighbour's house on fire I must first endeavour to extinguish the flames; that is a matter of immediate necessity, and then provide measures for the better education of the people. Another pathetic picture drawn was that on Sunday the poor man could not get his glass of beer for dinner. Cannot he get it on Saturday. ["Oh!"] It was objected that it would not keep. Well, that was a good argument for closing on Sunday; for if the beer was so bad that it would not keep a single night, the poor man would take care to buy beer on the next Saturday that would keep, and the seller of bad beer would lose his custom. It was said that the closing of public-houses on Sundays would give rise to illicit drunkenness. That was not likely, for the publicans themselves would act as most efficient policemen to prevent a result so contrary to their own interests. The hon. Member (Mr. Fielden) said that Colonel Wilson-Patten's Bill had led to many complaints; the reason was because it was a partial closing Bill. Had the houses been

613
closed on the whole of Sunday then the people would have provided for themselves beforehand; but the partial system led to disappointment. The failure of the partial system was, however, no argument against total closing.
MR. H. B. SAMUELSON: I cannot understand why hon. Members should come before the House to ask for a law to prevent a particular class of men from obtaining intoxicating liquor on a particular day of the week, or why they should draw distinctions between one day and another in this respect, and make such a pretence of wishing to pass this Bill for the good of the working classes. Is drunkenness a vice confined to a particular class? I dare say many hon. Gentlemen in this House know very well that that is not the case. Why, then, should hon. Gentlemen be so desirous to put these restrictions on working men alone? There is a good deal of humbug spoken in the House about the working men. In England one man is as good as another, and what business have we to pat the working man on the back and say—"You're a very good fellow, but we must keep you from drinking on Sundays." Why, the working man has just as much right to buy his glass of beer, and drink it on Sunday as any hon. Member has to go into his dining or smoking-room and refresh himself. The hon. Member for Denbighshire said that people went to public-houses on Sunday purposely to get drunk; but I do not believe it. I am not an advocate for keeping the public-house open the whole of Sunday; but that being the working man's leisure day, he should be afforded reasonable opportunities for obtaining refreshment. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you exclude the workman from the whisky shop, exclude the gentleman from his club. I wish to see working men's clubs accessible to the working men, where they may obtain rational recreation and reasonable refreshment. I cannot see, however, that a crime is worse because it is committed on Sunday than if committed on Monday. To reduce the number of public-houses will have some effect in putting a stop to drunkenness. The spread of education will, however, do more than the closing of public-houses on Sunday. I have myself been in countries where public-houses are closed
614
on Sundays, and I know that the result of those restrictions is the very opposite of that intended by the Bill. The working classes ought certainly to have increased opportunities afforded them of obtaining rational recreation on Sundays, and thus of avoiding the temptations that surround them. At present it may be said that, with our museums and public galleries shut up on Sundays, the only alternative left to the working man is to promenade the streets, with gin-palaces staring him in the face at every corner. If we pass such a Bill as this into law, there will be a violent reaction against it. The working men will not submit to be treated differently from other classes in this respect, and a strong feeling will be aroused if the House shall pass a measure so harsh, unreasonable, and arbitrary as this. Then there is another objection to the Bill—namely, the definition of a traveller. I consider that portion of the Bill particularly absurd, because the declaration that a person shall not be held to be a bonâ fide traveller, unless he is five miles from his home, will lead to the construction and maintenance of a cordon of public-houses and large refreshment houses all round our towns, specially devoted to supplying the wants of the so-called travellers. Besides which, it seems to me supremely ridiculous to declare that a person who has had a hot walk of three or four miles cannot need and shall not procure refreshment, while a person who has travelled three miles in a railway carriage is to be allowed to obtain as much as he pleases. In conclusion, I think the Bill is well meant; but its passing will stimulate a violent and general agitation through out the country, which, I believe, the promoters of the measure will be the first to deplore.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he intended to vote against the Bill—first, because he thought the question was one which, if dealt with at all, should be dealt with by the Government, and not by any private Member; secondly, because if the Bill passed, it would inflict a peculiar and special hardship on the working classes; and, thirdly, because the Bill applied to the country as well as to large towns, the circumstances being entirely different. Take the case of a small hamlet in a rural district. A son employed at a distance say of four

615
or five miles during the week, naturally desired to pay his parents a visit on Sunday. Would it not be a great hardship that he should be prevented from getting a glass of beer, or, as in the county with which he was connected, a glass of cider? The evils aimed at by the Bill could not be put down by such legislation. One of the most effectual ways of doing so would be, so far as possible, to raise the character of public-houses themselves. It was in the back streets and slums, and in public-houses and beershops of low standing, that drunkenness and disorder were fostered. He recollected an instance of that in a town which he frequently visited. There was in a back street such a public-house as he had described. Some alterations removed a considerable amount of property, and threw the quarter open. A respectable shopkeeper erected a heap of materials in front of the public-house, in order, as he said, to shut it out from the public view, but he advised him to "take all that stuff away," and let the public-house become public. The result war that its character was improved, and a short time after it sold for double its former value. The Bill would not in any shape attain the objects of those who had introduced and supported it, and he should give an unhesitating vote against the second reading.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he only rose to remind the House of what had taken place some years ago, when a Bill was passed far less stringent than the present. In 1853 that House agreed to a Bill for closing public-houses during certain hours, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman below him (Colonel Wilson Patten). That Bill gave rise to general dissatisfaction, and even caused something like violent riots in Hyde Park and the neighbourhood. Mr. Henry Berkeley made a Motion to refer the subject to a Select Committee, which he (Mr. Cobbett) seconded, and at the same time presented Petitions numerously signed against the Act. The Committee was appointed, he was a Member of it, and it only sat for five days, when Sir William Clay, then Member for the Tower Hamlets, intimated, on the part of the Government, that if a Bill were introduced restoring the hours to their former limits on Sundays no objections would be made. That course was adopted, and within a short time
616
after the Bill became law the obnoxious restrictions it imposed were swept away. That Act only related to London and to a part of Sunday; whereas this Bill would shut up public-houses all Sunday over the whole country. That was a policy which he hoped the House would not be so impolitic as to adopt. Assuredly, that Bill would be taken by the working classes as aimed specially at them, and would be, as on former occasions, resisted by them. He was surprised at the language used by the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), who said that the working classes only went to the public-houses on Sundays in order to get fuddled, and he hoped that expression would be withdrawn. So far from there being any truth in the statement, there were thousands of working men who at considerable expense compared with their limited means, and with great and laudable energy, took their wives and children a few miles into the country on Sundays for fresh air and recreation, and who only used public-houses for needful refreshment for themselves and families. He objected to the Bill on another ground—namely, that it left the vexed question of what constituted a "traveller" on Sunday still unsettled, and on these grounds, as well as by the light afforded by past experience, he earnestly hoped the House would not agree to the Bill.
MR. D. DALRYMPLEsaid, he would briefly state to the House the reasons why he could not vote for the Bill. He had some experience of places where the sale of liquor was absolutely forbidden. When he was in Philadelphia he found that no intoxicating drinks were allowed by law to be sold; but it was within his own knowledge that one had nothing to do but to ask in order to have whatever amount of liquor was required. In Boston he was told—and the fact was confirmed by a public notice, which he saw posted up at the principal entrance—by the waiter of the principal hotel that persons who wanted drink on Sundays sent their orders on Saturday nights, in order that the waiters might be ready to deliver them on Sunday morning. In the city of Montreal, where a similar regulation existed, the fact was that the law was evaded in a very simple manner. The public-houses were not allowed to be open; but you had only to open the door for yourself in order to get everything

617
you wanted. In addition to that fact, the legal officer had informed him that the prohibition of open drinking had only increased the practice of private drinking to excess on Sundays. In fact, while sympathizing with the objects of the Bill, he felt that it had gone far beyond the actual requirements of the case, and that it would inevitably cause great dissatisfaction throughout the country, and so tend to impede the progress of beneficial and practical legislation upon the subject.
MR. BRUCE: There is no doubt that the proposition contained in the Bill is supported by a considerable number of the working population of the country; but let it be borne in mind that there is now before the House of Commons a comprehensive Government measure dealing with the whole question of the sale of intoxicating liquors. In that Bill there is a clause specially dealing with the question of Sunday traffic, and when we come to that clause it will be quite open to the hon. Gentleman to move any Amendment he pleases. Under those circumstances, it does seem to me to be mere waste of time to continue this discussion.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose for the purpose of stating to the House that it seemed to him that some of the hon. Members who brought forward the Bill were quite ashamed of themselves. This was the first time they had a discussion on the question of the total abolition of liquor traffic on Sundays. That was a most remarkable proposition, but no arguments had been adduced in favour of it. Then there was another question which he should wish to see cleared up. Some time ago there was a Bill brought forward by the late Mr. John Abel Smith. What was the fate of that Bill? The Bill itself did not pretend to put a stop to drinking on Sundays. It merely limited the hours of sale on Sunday, as was done before by the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham. Well, what became of Mr. Smith's Bill? It was referred to a Select Committee—a Committee of 15. The Chairman was a Scotchman, and it might fairly be supposed that he would be enamoured of the plan in operation in Scotland with respect to Sunday liquor traffic. But what did he say? He said that Scotland was different from England—that it would be absurd to attempt any re-
618
duction of the hours wherein liquor was to be sold on Sunday. The Bill was negatived by an immense majority—thrown out by the proportion of 12 votes to 3; and the Report which had been that day alluded to, but not sufficiently, stated that it was totally unnecessary to have any legislation in the proposed direction, inasmuch as drunkenness was rapidly diminishing in the country. ["No, no!"] He believed he heard his hon. Friend the hon. Baronet behind him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) say "No;" but the fact was that drunkenness had diminished and was—["Order, order!"]
And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.