INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL. [BILL 83.] (Hansard, 5 June 1874)

§ MR. MELLY
said, he had given Notice of an Amendment on the clause, the object of which was, that in towns with a population under 2,500, in districts of the most rural character, the hour of closing public-houses on Sunday nights should be 9 instead of 10; but there was another proposal on the Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) which he preferred, and which, for several reasons, Her Majesty's Government might accept, one of them being that the noble Lord who was now Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) brought forward a similar Motion in 1872, and argued it with considerable ability. It was to the effect that, on Sunday evenings in rural districts public-houses should not be re-opened until 7 o'clock, instead of at 6 as the Bill proposed, so that they might be closed at the time people were proceeding to Divine Worship. If the proposition were approved by the Government, that 7 should be the hour of opening and 10 the hour of closing, he would save the time of the Committee by withdrawing his Amendment, and thus obviate the necessity for proceeding to a division on it. That proposition, he knew, would best meet the wishes of the rural gentry, of the clergy and ministers of all denominations, and of a very large majority of the trade who objected to Sunday labour as much as any other class.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he should most decidedly oppose the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Stoke had given Notice; but he promised that when the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire came under discussion, he would listen attentively to what was said about the matter, and give his opinion to the Committee upon the subject.

§ MR. MELLY
consented, after the division which took place the previous night, to withdraw his Amendment, and leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire. In so doing, he believed he would be consulting the convenience of the Committee.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, that with all due deference to the hon. Member for Stoke, he must decidedly 1065 object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, at all events until they heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for North "Wiltshire some explanation as to what his Amendment really meant, and the course it was intended to pursue upon the subject.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
said, his Amendment was, that on Sundays public-houses should be closed from 3 o'clock until 7, instead of from 3 o'clock until 6, as proposed by the Bill, and that they should be open from 7 to 10, instead of 6 to 9. He did not like to have public-houses and the church-doors open at the same time. The Committee would see that if his proposition were carried, the hours during which the houses would be allowed to remain open would be precisely the same as proposed by the Government measure—three hours during the evening, the only difference being that the time would be 7 to 10 instead of 6 to 9. He hoped the Committee would see the matter in the same light as he did, and assist in that view—namely, the prevention of public-houses being open at the same time as the church-doors were open, and the bells chiming for Divine Service. He might be told that public-houses always had been open hitherto at 6 o'clock; but the Committee must remember that the present Bill was introduced avowedly to remedy the evils of the existing Act, and the existing state of things, and he hoped we should go forward in the good cause. He respected the licensed victuallers as a body, and many of them had stated to him that they would be glad if the public-houses were closed altogether on Sundays, therefore he hoped the Committee would assist him in the proposition he should have to make, and here he would refer hon. Members to the Petitions which had been presented to the House on the subject of that Bill. He found by the Votes that there were two pages and a half of Petitions recorded against the Bill in its present form, and only one page in its favour, and when they saw that, and the quantity of letters which had been received in reference to the Bill, he thought the Committee would only be fairly representing public feeling, if they let the people have a quiet Sunday evening in the rural districts rather than to open public-houses at the same time that the church-doors were open for Divine Service.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, that after what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, he must persist in taking the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke. Having first fixed the closing hour, they would then be able to decide what time public-houses should be opened.

§ MR. GREENE
did not think that was the most convenient time to discuss the matter, and he would point out that evening service in rural parishes was a very rare occurrence. "When the time arrived, he should move that the hours should be from 5 to 9 o'clock on Sundays, which he thought would meet the convenience of all classes.

§ MR. BEACH
differed from the hon. Member who had last spoken. He could not agree with him that evening service in the country was a rare occurrence; in fact, it had now become very prevalent. The services were held in adjoining parishes at different hours, thus affording greater opportunities for people to attend. He would shorten the hours of keeping open public-houses on Sundays as much as possible; because if they gave those who were weary the opportunity of slaking their thirst, there was no reason why they should unnecessarily prolong the hours and give others the opportunity of remaining drinking in the houses. He should, therefore, vote for both the Amendments of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) and that of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson).

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN
said, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend if he went to a division. That was not a question of affording facilities for recruiting strength after a hard day's work, and in his opinion Sunday drinking or "boozing" was a bad thing. He was satisfied that 9 o'clock was quite late enough in rural districts, where, as a rule, people went to bed early.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he not only protested emphatically against the statement and the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Denbighshire, but he, for one, should be sorry if it were taken out-of-doors that Parliament imagined that every person who went into a public-house on a Sunday evening went there to drink or to "booze." In the North of England it was by no means the custom, and he should be 1067 sorry if it was believed to be so anywhere.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
considered that already labouring people had a strong ground of complaint. It was a very hard case that they should have to wait an hour and a half after the afternoon service before they could obtain beer. The service was usually over about 4.30, and the public-houses were not open until 6. Many of the labouring class lived some distance from the village, and they complained that they had to stay and loiter about all that time in the village before they could provide themselves with beer to take home with them for their supper. It might be said that they could obtain it the previous night; but that was not a convenient plan, and he hoped the Government would be able to provide some remedy to meet the case he had alluded to.

MR. WILSON
supported the Amendment, and pointed out that several important towns had already adopted 9 o'clock as the closing hour on Sundays. That had been the ease in the largest and third largest seaport towns, and it occurred to him that if the larger towns were satisfied with early closing, it was idle to say that in other places later hours were required.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, although he had voted yesterday in favour of the hour of 10 as against 9 for the towns, he could not help thinking that the question of shutting up public-houses on Sundays in the agricultural districts at certain hours was a different thing entirely from the practice in towns. It had succeeded very well in large towns and cities, but what its effect would be in the country must be decided by the personal knowledge of hon. Gentlemen themselves. He knew it would be an advantage to shorten the hours in his own locality on Sundays, and the Committee should boar in mind that on other days the time of closing was earlier in the country than it was in the towns. Under those circumstances, he should vote for the 9 o'clock closing as proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke.

COLONEL JERVIS
thought it impossible that the Bill could work in its present form, since it contained this curious anomaly, to which he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentle- 1068 man the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that in one parish public-houses were to close at 9 o'clock, whilst in another parish, in many cases, they might stay open until 10. That circumstance gave a great deal of trouble, as men could walk from one parish to another—sometimes there was only a short distance between public-houses in distinct parishes—and get liquor an hour after being turned out of a public-house in the adjoining parish. When Mr. Bruce brought forward his Bill, it was not intended that there should be any distinction made between agricultural and town districts. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman thought it impossible to draw any distinction which would work, as large villages and towns were so close together in this country. He (Colonel Jervis) very much doubted whether there were any such things as purely agricultural districts to be met with in England—the towns and villages lying so close together.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
reminded the Committee that people in the rural districts generally went out for a walk on a Sunday afternoon, and it would be a great hardship if all the public-houses were closed at an hour which would prevent them having some beer on their return. He hoped therefore the Government would stand to their guns, and persevere in keeping the hours as they were specified in the clause.

§ LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON
, in proposing as an Amendment, in page 2, sub-section 3, line 9, to leave out "six," and insert "five," as the hour of opening in the country, said, the question was a very simple one. In the country districts it was still, he was happy to say, the practice for the labourers to do a good day's work. They commenced their labour at 6 o'clock in the morning, and as they often lived long distances from their work, they often had to leave home at 4.30 or 5 o'clock. They were in the habit of taking their dinners with them, and unless they were able to buy some beer before 6 o'clock, the result was, that they had to go without, as they could not obtain any during the day. For- 1069 merly their children might have been seen carrying their meals to those hardworking men, but now, thanks to the operation of the Education Act, those children were more profitably employed in the elementary schools, and could not, therefore, any longer take any beer to them for their dinner, so that the men were absolutely debarred from obtaining the needful refreshment they required. It was no doubt the wish of Parliament to limit as much as possible the opportunities given to men to get drunk; but at the same time the House was bound—and he thought it was the object of the Bill—to give them every reasonable opportunity of obtaining that which in this case was not a luxury, but an absolute necessity of life. He was afraid that if the working classes were debarred from the use of beer they would be tempted to resort to spirits, for they were more able to keep a bottle of spirits in their houses than to get a cask of beer. He remembered that in Dr. Dalrymple's Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of insanity produced by drunkenness, some witnesses from the United States were examined who told them—"You have a great deal of drunkenness in England, and we have a great deal, too, in the United States; but yours merely arises from beer, while ours arises from spirits. So long as your population get drunk on beer only, you need feel no alarm; but Heaven preserve you from spirits!" They must take care, then, to do nothing by their legislation to induce the labouring classes to resort to spirits, instead of the national beverage of beer. In conclusion, he would move his Amendment, and as he thought it a very reasonable proposition, he trusted the Committee would accept it.

§ MR. BASSETT
supported the Amendment. The 5 o'clock opening had been adopted in the borough which he had the honour to represent, without any disadvantage having arisen from it. The local magistrates were perfectly content with it.

§ MR. FOTHERGILL
likewise supported the Amendment. It was, he said, 1070 simply folly to try and prevent the working classes obtaining that refreshment which they required. Those who took that course actually did not know anything of what they were speaking about. They would legislate for men as they thought they ought to be, but not for men as they actually existed. He had great experience of the working men throughout the country, especially in the colliery districts. Thousands of the men who worked in his colliery district (Merthyr) had to be at their work at 6 o'clock, and it was useless to open public-houses when there was no one to go into them. His experience was that there was very little morning drinking. He was not like many amiable and benevolent Gentlemen who did not know what they were talking about, and spoke of an ideal working man. He knew their work, and never heard of large bodies of them sitting in public-houses and drinking in the morning. A public-house in the morning was the most dreary place in the world to sit in. Of course, there might be exceptions; but, as a rule, working men did not sit there. He expressed the opinion that beer drinking was not so prejudicial as some persons imagined; and whilst he considered public-house beer the vilest stuff imaginable, yet the men liked it, and unfortunately the worse it was the better they liked it. But the men did not suffer so much from beer drinking as they did from spirit drinking. For his own part, he hated public-houses; but he lived amongst a manufacturing population, and he knew their wants; he considered that Parliament should legislate for their needs, and not to please particular fancies. He said, let them not lay down hard-and-fast rules which would drive men to spirit drinking. He was in favour of public-houses opening at 5 o'clock in the morning.

§ MR. ONSLOW
, in opposing the Amendment, said, the argument of the noble Lord its Mover implied that the Education Act was meant to give greater facilities for drinking. He hoped he should give a reasonable vote on the matter, and one which would be for the welfare of the working classes; but he thought it would not be well for the working classes that public-houses should be opened at 5 o'clock in the morning. He thought that beer drinking was not good for men at that hour, and that tea 1071 or coffee would do them much more good. In the borough which he represented (Guildford), where there was a quasi-rural population, two tea and coffee shops had been opened for the convenience of labourers, and they were answering very well. He did not see why the experiment might not be tried elsewhere with equally good results, for men could work quite as hard on coffee, or tea, at that hour in the morning, as on beer.

§ MR. HAYTER
expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, the effect of which would not in any way encourage drinking amongst agricultural labourers.

§ MR. GREENE
said, that although the Amendment did not affect his constituency, as he understood that it was not to apply to places containing less than 2,500 inhabitants, yet he should support it. He thought that it would be a great boon to the labouring classes. The labourers wanted their beer before they went to their work, and he believed that if they were allowed to have it, it would tend to sobriety. If they were unable to take their beer before they left home, they would club together when they were at work, and send for beer, and thereby drink more than they would if they could get it before they left their homes. Although he did not represent a county, he represented a large place, and he was quite convinced that what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fothergill) was quite right. He thought that if those who wanted refreshment were to confine themselves to beer, no great damage would be done; but it was the spirits, and not the beer, that did so much mischief. He had heard of a place of amusement having a notice which said— My friends, walk in here: Nothing does excel the music but the beer. He thought that beer was necessary for the labouring classes, and he should therefore vote for the noble Lord's Amendment.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
said, he was very sorry to differ from the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Fothergill). He thought, however, he knew as much upon that subject as the hon. Member for Merthyr. Having had experience as a working man, a farmer, a railway contractor, and a colliery proprietor, he could say that working men 1072 did not require the public-houses open at 5 o'clock in the morning. He had been a working man himself, and not only that, but an employer of labour as well. The workmen of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill) did not go to their work before 7 o'clock in the morning, and they could get their beer from the public-houses, if they required it, at 6 o'clock. It had been said that the men would stay drinking in the public-houses until 11 o'clock at night, and would get up again at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to recommence drinking. Now, if the working men were going to stop drinking until 1 at night, and if they were going to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to drink beer again, he would like to know when they were going to sleep? He was sure six hours was not enough for a working man's sleep. If he was going to do his employer justice, he must have seven and a-half hours' sleep at least. That was his experience as a working man. He was proud to say that he had been a working man himself, and he spoke from a working man's point of view; and it was not common sense to hold otherwise than that that rest was too short. There was another thing that his experience taught him, and that was that if the public-houses were open the men would go in before they went to their work, and get drunk before they reached their work, and some would not go to work until the day after. That was his experience in many instances. He would stick up for the working man as much as anyone; but when that extension was asked for him, he must say that he thought it was not needed. Was it common sense to ask the publican to open at 5 o'clock in the morning in these days of short hours all round? He thought not. He must congratulate the Government on the shape the Bill was taking, and he cordially thanked them for it. He must say that he did not much like the look of it at first; but it seemed to have got round to common sense at last. He presented 45 Petitions yesterday against the Bill. He had received, he might say, baskets full in favour of amending the Bill as it was; but, with the exception of what had been done by the last vote, the Bill was in the right direction, and what the country desired.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, they had the whole argument on that subject 1073 over last night. It was precisely the same argument. His experience of his own part of the country (Lancashire) was that it was the labouring man's wife or child who took his dinner to him when at work, consequently his glass of beer—which he hoped he would always have—would be much fresher if taken to him by his wife, than if he himself obtained it at an early hour in the morning, and carried it with him to his work; and he hardly thought that the opening of public-houses at 5 o'clock in the morning was needed. He would like to remind the Committee that the House last night decided against precisely the same question by a majority of 382 against 52. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. HEYGATE
said, he begged to remind the Committee that there was a good deal of difference between the question referred to, as decided last night and that now under discussion. In the county which he had the honour to represent there was an almost unanimous opinion against late hours at night, and in favour of an early opening in the morning in rural districts, and he thought that the wish for it was a fair one. Whatever might be said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Davies) as to the working classes not requiring it in mineral districts, where men worked short hours and drank champagne, the hon. Member would find that in agricultural counties, the work commenced very early; at certain periods of the year, especially in harvest time, the work began at a very early period of the day, and the labourers were compelled to take their beer with them for the day on their way to their work. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman refused to make this concession, which he maintained was different from that rejected by the Committee on the previous evening, and he hoped, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton) would take the sense of the Committee upon the Motion.

MR. STARKIE
said, it seemed to him that every hon. Member's opinion upon this Bill had been arrived at more or less hurriedly; and if in a short time they had an opportunity of going down into the country and addressing their constituents, they would find a difference of feeling as to what had transpired 1074 in that House. With regard to this particular Amendment before the House, he thought the noble Lord who moved it (Lord Claud John Hamilton) had some principle to guide him. With respect to the hour of 5 o'clock—which was the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord—instead of 6 o'clock, he saw that he had some principle, because the Committee had heard what had been said upon the requirements of the agricultural labourers wanting their beer before they commenced their early work. Now, he could understand the case of the agricultural labourer, and he would vote for that; but the hour of 6 he did not understand, because it was neither one thing nor another. He should very much like to see the hour of 7 inserted in the Bill instead of 6, because he was speaking for a large population, which was almost entirely a colliery population. Their employers did not want them to have drink before they went to their work. It was, no doubt, true that when the working classes had been enjoying themselves a little over night, the next morning they were very much inclined to take "a hair of the dog that bit them," and then, instead of going to work, they stopped boozing about for another day. He could answer for the district to which he belonged that they never heard a single word of grumbling when the magistrates altered the hours to 7 in the morning and 11 in the evening. He must say that he should very much like to see that universal hour of 7 o'clock adopted thoughout the whole country, except in the metropolis of London. He had merely addressed those few remarks to the House, because when he had an opportunity of meeting his constituents, he could tell them what he really thought was the best for the country, and could tell them that he asserted his opinion in that House. He should certainly not vote with the noble Lord, because he should vote for 6 o'clock, for it was nearer his (Mr. Starkie's) hour than the noble Lord's.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
said, that the argument of the Home Secretary really did not meet the question. A great number of the wives of working men could not bring their meals to them on account of the distance and other engagements at home; and he feared that the result of adopting 6 as the hour would be that, in many cases— 1075 since beer drawn over-night would not be good, and they were debarred from getting fresh in the morning—men would substitute for beer, spirits, which would not deteriorate by being put in their bottles over-night.

§ MR. WELBY
believed that to open the public-houses at 5 o'clock in the agricultural districts would be a concession to hard-working men which would lead to no evil results.

§ GENERAL SHUTE
said, he only wished to say that the Hove bench of magistrates upon which he had the honour of sitting had fixed the hour for opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock for the last two years, with the greatest possible advantage. There was a great deal of building going on at the extreme west of Brighton, and a vast proportion of workmen who went there, had a distance of one, two, or three miles to walk. He could assure the House that there had not been the slightest objection to the hour of 5. On the contrary, it had been of the greatest possible advantage to the labourers, and had not in any way increased drunkenness. He founded this statement not merely on his own knowledge as a magistrate, but during the late Whitsun Holidays he had made special enquiries of the Hove police, who one and all endorsed this opinion. If the Amendment was adopted, he was quite sure that the concession would be followed by no evil results whatever. He did not ask it for the class of men who had been spoken of by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Davies); but he asked it for a class of men who went out to work early in the morning, and who did want that concession.

§ MR. STORER
thought it exceedingly hard that the labouring classes should have an hour cut off each end of the time in which they could got refreshments. He thought the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Davies) must be an eccentric lot. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Guildford that coffee was as good as beer, and he thought that if the hon. Member would poll his agricultural constituents they would toll him another and a different story.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
What I said the other night was that, a case having been made out, I would prepare a clause for the agricultural labourers giving the magistrates special power to 1076 grant exceptional licences at harvest time. I have had a clause drawn up with that object which I will submit to the House, so that the agricultural labourer shall have time to get his beer during the harvest. This provision will, I think, meet the case of the agricultural labourers.

COLONEL JERVIS
said, there was one question he should like to ask of the Home Secretary—What was to become of the fishing population? They did not get 7½ hours sleep, but sometimes only two or three. Did the Committee suppose it possible for the wives or daughters of the fishermen to take them their beer? With the fishing population it was not a question of 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock, but it was a question whether the men who went fishing should have fresh beer or stale beer.

§ MR. RATHBONE
said, that in certain parts of the country the magistrates had taken the hour of 5 o'clock. That was, he believed, the hour that was generally fixed in the agricultural districts. Why should not the hours which had been fixed in the different parts of the country by the magistrates be adopted in the Bill? Those hours had been fixed by the different benches of magistrates to the perfect satisfaction of their neighbourhoods. The hours would then be fixed by Act of Parliament, and they would carry out the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary by doing so.

§ LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON
said, he was sorry that the Home Secretary felt that he could not accept his Amendment. He thought that it was a matter that ought to be settled by a vote of the House. As to leaving the magistrates to fix the hour, what chance would there be of a bench of magistrates composed of men holding the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thought fit to base his refusal to accept the Amendment on his experience of Lancashire. Lancashire, as they all knew, was a manufacturing county, and the people had not to go the same distance to work as they had in agricultural counties. The wives of the labourers in Lancashire might be able to carry the beer to their husbands, but in the Eastern Counties that was impossible. The time of the women in the 1077 Eastern Counties was mainly engrossed in adding to the population, and they could not expect a woman to go to her husband with a baby under one arm and a bottle of beer under the other. After the opinions expressed by so many hon. Members in favour of his Amendment, he must trouble the Committee to divided.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, he had not understood the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) to recommend that the hour of opening should be left to the discretion of the magistrates, but that the Committee should adopt the hours which they had found convenient. It appeared that in agricultural districts the hour of 5 had been generally adopted.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
I propose to accept the Amendment placed on the Paper, to leave out "eleven" and insert "ten" in line 11 of the clause. That will carry out the understanding which the Committee has arrived at already with regard to the closing hours.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper in reference to closing in rural districts containing imputations not exceeding 2,500 inhabitants, and he should like to lay before the Committee his reasons for the proposition he wished to make. He thought that the hours of closing should be 10 o'clock from the 29th of September to the 25th of March, and 11 o'clock from the 25th of March to the 29th September. His constituents in South Warwickshire were quite capable of understanding the Bill of his right hon. Friend, notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member who had last spoken. They objected to the magistrates having a discretionary power with reference to the hours of closing, to an inquisitorial power being placed in the hands of the police, and to the public-houses and beer-houses being on a different footing; and hence it was they approved of the Bill before the House. He was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Davies), who was so well acquainted with the working classes in that part of the country, was also perfectly satisfied with the Bill. He certainly preferred 1078 the practical views and knowledge of the hon. Member for Cardigan to the philosophical and abstract views of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The Home Secretary having agreed to uniformity of hours for closing public-houses and beer-houses rendered it unnecessary that he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) should refer to that subject; but what he did hope was that, as that difficulty had been removed, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the time of closing in the rural districts being 11 o'clock in summer and 10 in winter. In the winter months the agricultural labourer returned home at 5 o'clock or earlier, and before 10 the agricultural villages were, in most cases, literally asleep. It was a great expense to a publican to keep his house open in a rural district till 10 o'clock, having to burn candles or gas and keep up fires, with, perhaps one solitary individual sitting in the chimney corner smoking his pipe, with a pint of beer. He saw no reason why the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman should not be carried out as regarded the winter months, but thought 10 o'clock was too soon to close in the summer, as the labourers often worked till 9 or 9.30. As the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykeham Martin) had told them, the men worked at the allotments in the months of June and July, when the days were long, and 10 was too early an hour to close in those months. The labourer not only had his allotments, but sometimes took a little recreation in the shape of cricket, and it would be hard if he could not get a little refreshment after his day's work or play had ended.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
rose to a point of Order. He wished to ask what Question was before the House? The Home Secretary had proposed that 10 o'clock should be the hour of closing in rural districts, and the hon. Baronet seemed not to be speaking to that question, but to a subsequent Amendment which stood in his name.

THE CHAIRMAN
The question is, That the word "eleven" should stand part of the clause; and I apprehend the hon. Baronet is addressing himself to that part of the Question.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT
said, the point he was considering was, whether the hour of closing in rural districts should be 10 or 11, and therefore ho 1079 thought he had been strictly in Order. After what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would not move his Amendment.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, he had an Amendment upon the Paper, that in all rural districts the houses should close at 10 o'clock every night in the week. There was, however, a little practical difficulty in places where the population exceeded 2,500. In the county which he had the honour to represent (West Kent), there were, owing to peculiar circumstances, districts of precisely the same character as regarded the character of population; but in some cases the number happened to be above 2,500, whilst in others it was far below. The numbers of the population did not afford a perfect criterion as to the best way of regulating the hours. He thought, therefore, that some better definition of what rural districts were to be considered to consist of was required, and would suggest that in addition to "rural districts" the words "which are not towns" should be inserted in the clause. That would more clearly show where the 10 o'clock rule was to apply. He hoped the matter would be considered upon the Report.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
understood the desire of the Committee was, that in all cases where the beer-houses closed at 10 o'clock, the public-houses should close at the same time, and that that was confined to rural districts.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
thought that that would not be quite satisfactory. Populations of precisely the same character and with the same requirements would not be placed on an equal footing, as the district which exceeded the limit, although adjoining one that was below it, would come under a different rule, and be later than the adjoining one which was below the limit. The Bill dealt with three classes of population—the metropolis, the towns, and the rural districts having each a distinct hour.

§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN
agreed with the hon. Member for West Kent that some alteration was required in the proposal before them. He instanced the case of adjoining parishes, the houses in which would close at different hours, as the population of one of them exceeded the limit laid down. The public-houses would close in one parish at 10, and 1080 another house, perhaps half-a-dozen yards away, would keep open till 11. The system of allotment referred to by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was carried out to perfection by the agricultural labourers in the district he represented. The agricultural labourers were very much attached to those allotments, and the system had a good effect upon them. They remained at work in the present season so late as a quarter or half-past 9 o'clock, and as the allotments were purposely placed at a distance from the public-houses, the men could not get there in time to have a glass of beer to quench their thirst if the law directed the closing hour to be 10 o'clock. As a rule, the men were by no means given to drunkenness. Since last evening he had endeavoured to calculate the number of people he had seen intoxicated from the 1st of January to the present time (June 5), including the first night during which he was engaged in canvassing a district of 220,000 during a period of election excitement. They did not exceed five, two being together during the Whitsuntide holidays and three at contested elections.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought the hon. Members for West Kent and Rochester could hardly contemplate the difficulty there would be if the Government were to define each rural district. The fact was, there could be no better test than population, and they could not legislate for exceptional cases.

§ MR. SANDFORD
, in moving an Amendment, to the effect that on Sunday afternoons public-houses wherever situate should remain closed from 3 to 5 o'clock, instead as the Bill proposed from 3 to 6, said, he should, in the first instance, propose the omission of the word "six." That was a subject on which his constituents felt strongly, as the closing at 5 o'clock would materially interfere with their comforts.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
If the word "six" be struck out, then the Committee will have to consider how the blank is to be filled up, whether by the insertion of "five" or "seven." As a second Amendment appears on the Paper to extend the closed time on Sundays by an hour, by substituting "7" for "6," it would be, perhaps, as well, with a view to save time, to discuss the two Amendments together.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
considered that closing public-houses on the Sabbath from 5 to 7 o'clock would greatly incommode those who were known as Sunday excursionists. If the House desired to persevere in its action of putting down Sunday excursions, the better course would be to do it by direct rather than indirect means. Besides, the alteration of hour either as proposed by the Bill, or now contemplated by the Government, would act most injuriously on the owners of a number of well-conducted public-houses in the neighbourhood of large towns. If the hour of 7 were adopted, it was his belief that a large amount of spirits would be bought by excursionists and carried about with them, so that they could consume it between the hours of 6 and 7. He hoped the Home Secretary would, in considering this question, not overlook that view.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
said, he should certainly urge upon the Government to adopt his Amendment, keeping public-houses closed from 3 to 7 o'clock; for when the word "six" was omitted it would practically become a question between 5 and 7. Three hours, from 7 to 10, it must be obvious to the Committee, were quite sufficient to let remain; but if 5 o'clock were the hour fixed, there would be given a spell of five hours' drinking. No person in that House, he thought, could stand up and say that five hours were required for any body of men to drink in public-houses on Sunday evenings. He was desirous that public-houses should be open so long as they were required for a reasonable accommodation of the public on Sundays, but no longer; and that was the view held by respectable licensed victuallers themselves, the large majority of whom felt that on the Sabbath they should have as many hours of rest from business as possible, and that they ought to be kept at home the smallest 1082 number of hours consistent with the convenience of the public. He had had a large number of Petitions from licensed victuallers requesting him to advocate the shortening of hours during which public-houses were to be kept open on Sundays, but he had not had one word said to him nor had he received a single Petition in favour of these houses being allowed to open at 6. There was a strong feeling in his district that the facilities for the sale of drink on the Sabbath should be diminished rather than increased.

§ COLONEL BARTTELOT
hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the medium course, and make the reopening hour 6 o'clock. That hour would give the greatest satisfaction to the country at large.

§ MR. EVANS
said, he would support the hon. Baronet's Amendment. He thought three hours for remaining open on Sunday nights was quite sufficient. As regarded Sunday excursionists, whose case the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea had pleaded, it was sufficient to say that they came under the bonâ fide traveller question.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts; but wished to explain that he should be compelled in the first place to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Maldon to vote for the elimination of the word "six."

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, that on this question the wants and requirements and the enjoyment of the publicans ought to be consulted. He believed that if they were polled from one end of the country to the other they would be found in favour of the opening hour on Sunday evenings being 7 o'clock.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) that he would run some risk in voting to strike out the word "six," as "five" might ultimately be substituted, and he would therefore recommend him to vote with the Government in favour of 6 o'clock.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he should be glad to know whether the Government were disposed to go farther. Perhaps the Home Secretary would inform the Committee what hour they were prepared to support.

§ MR. HUNT
Six o'clock.

§ COLONEL LEARMONTH
said, he had had opportunities of seeing a great number of provincial people, and they had all of them expressed to him their desire that 5 should be the hour of opening. The churches were over at 4 o'clock, and it was felt as a great inconvenience that people should have to wait so long for their afternoon beer. For this reason he was anxious to have the hour fixed at 5.

§ MR. DODSON
said, he should like to know what the wishes and the intentions of the Government were in the matter? He was himself prepared to accept 7. Undeterred by the alarm caused by the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should vote against 6 with a view of making it 7.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he certainly understood that the last vote was taken on the understanding that the Government would support 7. He himself was personally in favour of 7, but his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the House when he made that statement. Many hon. Gentlemen who voted for the extension to 10, did so on the understanding that the hour of opening would be 7.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
said, he did not know why the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) should wish to make the opening hour 7 o'clock. Though himself in favour of 5, he thought the compromise contained in the first proposal of the Government was a course sufficiently satisfactory.

§ MR. DODSON
observed that he understood that the Government were going to vote for the omission of 6, with a view to the insertion of 7.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that that was what he intended; and he knew that on that ground many hon. Members sitting behind him voted with the Government in the last division.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
wanted to know whether the Government meant to leave this an open question, or to throw the whole weight of their influence into the scale?

§ MR. SANDFORD
wished to know what course the Government were going to take? Were they going to vote for striking out 6?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
Yes.

§ MR. GREENE
said, he presumed hon. Gentlemen would vote on that 1084 question as they thought fit. If 7 were made the hour instead of 6, he thought it would be one of the most unjust things that was ever done. He trusted the Committee would not do such a thing.

COLONEL SIR JAMES HOGG
hoped that 6 would remain. If it were taken out, he should be driven to vote for 5.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, that as the Government had changed their tactics, he should change his, and he should therefore withdraw his Amendment for striking out six, if the Committee would allow him.

§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSON
said, that as the Committee had decided both against 5 o'clock and against 6 o'clock, he would now move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "six," and insert "seven."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
, speaking in the interest of the public rather than in that of the publicans, asked the Committee what they meant to drive the people to on Sundays? If they meant to drive them into church at 3 o'clock, would they keep them there until 7 o'clock?—he understood the hon. Baronet wanted to keep them there until 7 o'clock. [Sir GEORGE JENKINSON: No, no!] Why, it was well known that the people who went to church at 3 o'clock left it long before 7 o'clock came? He should like to know from the Home Secretary what effect the 7 o'clock proposal would have upon the Bill in respect to private drinking, and the bottle system about which he had given them such an earnest warning. It was true they might carry their Bill by large majorities; but he would remind them that the opinion of the House was not absolute in these matters. The Act of 1872 had been carried by much larger majorities than had voted that evening; but as it did not agree with the views of the public, it had now to be amended. In the same way that measure, instead of being a final settlement of the question, would have to be hereafter altered. If the 1085 right hon. Gentleman insisted on having 7 o'clock inserted in the clause it would produce much dissatisfaction, as an attempt to alter the habits of the people, who would not be driven to church by Act of Parliament.

§ COLONEL DYOTT
said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford City, and had to express his extreme surprise at the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which was not only disappointing to the country, but likewise to their own party. He (Colonel Dyott) represented a cathedral city, and his constituents were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as originally drawn. It had been distinctly stated that they intended to abide by 6 o'clock, but nevertheless when the Question was put, they thought it their duty to go into the Lobby and vote against it. There was little more to be said, except that that vacillation would give them a shake from which they might not be able to recover, for although they had a majority now they might not always have it.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, he recollected distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty assured the House that he would vote for 6 o'clock, and therefore it was to be supposed that the other Members of the Government would do likewise. It was not until the Secretary of State for the Home Department had put the matter right, that the Committee knew the Government had adopted the hour of 7. In his opinion, it was a sad thing that the Government should allow themselves to be led away by persons who had particular crotchets, or who, like the hon. Baronet, had strong religious feelings, and who thought that on that account they had a right to interfere with everyone else. If the hon. Baronet wished to go to church at 3 o'clock, there was not a single Member of the House who would deny him the pleasure of remaining there until after midnight, if he pleased, clothed in sackcloth and ashes. He (Mr. Locke) was always delighted when men had the opportunity of practising their religion freely and without restraint; but he would not bear with any man who would presume to interfere with him in his religious practices, nor could he allow him to dictate to him what he should drink and what he should eat, or of doing so whenever he liked. 1086 He was sorry to see the other side of the House going in for harassing legislation, indeed he was surprised to find that sort of legislation favoured by the other side. They had almost been extinguished by legislators of that kind in the last Parliament. Many of them had been got rid of, thank Heaven; but it was an awful thing to see the other side of the House following in their footsteps. He was also surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have changed his mind, and upset that of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in consequence of the eloquence of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, which had induced him to adopt these hours. That eloquence had had no effect upon him (Mr. Locke), and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would disregard it. If he came to his senses, and got rid of harassing restrictions, the Bill would pass in a form acceptable to the country.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, it was true the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a concession; but his right hon. Friend had only done exactly what might have been expected from a man of his personal honour. That was not a party question. In the previous debate there had been a weighty expression of opinion in favour of an earlier hour, and the real question to be decided was not a party matter, but what was the best time. He could sympathize with the hon. Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke), who had probably consoled himself for being in Opposition, by the belief that he would be in a majority on questions of this kind. But this question was before the country at the last Election, and the result showed that the feeling of the country was in favour of the course which, in making this concession, the Government were now pursuing, and which alone could lead to a final settlement of the question.

§ MR. WATNEY
said, that in 1872 the hours were fixed by a compromise, and the closing time was fixed at from 3 to 6 on Sunday afternoon, which was in point of fact, a reduction of one hour upon the time the houses were allowed to be open up to that period. It was now proposed to take off another hour, and he did not believe the working men would stand it. If men could not get refreshments in a regular way, they 1087 would get them by stealth—that was to say, they would travel a short distance and obtain liquor under the disguise of bonâ fide travellers, which would bring about most mischievous results.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he should be sorry if any of his hon. Friends thought that the Government had disregarded their views; but when the question was under consideration as to whether the time of closing should be 9 or 10, he referred to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, and suggested that the two questions should be discussed together. During that debate he heard no strong expression of opinion in opposition to the proposal, and on the division a large proportion of hon. Members who usually supported the Government voted against them. Having on that occasion stated that the proposition would meet with acceptance at the hands of the Government, he was sure no one would suppose that the promise could be retracted.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
recalled to the Committee what had really happened. Upon the question of closing at 9 instead of 10 being debated, the Home Secretary had called attention to an Amendment about to be proposed, the object of which was to close from 3 till 7 instead of from 3 till 6, and had wished both subjects to be argued together, saying that he thought a stronger case could be made for that Amendment than for the 9 o'clock closing—that was, for taking off an hour at the beginning rather than at the end of the evening. But he had not promised to support that Amendment, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had heard with considerable satisfaction the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had not been aware of the previous speech of the Home Secretary, saying that 6 o'clock was the best hour. If the Committee should divide, he would go into the lobby against "seven" being inserted in the Bill. He believed that the Government were going now to impose another unnecessary restriction, and he felt confident that if they persisted in this course, they would incur the risk of running counter to the feelings of the great mass of the population, though they might please for a certain time a number of gentlemen who were opposed to all drinking.

§ MR. LAIRD
thanked the Government for accepting the Amendment; and said that in Birkenhead they had tried the hours of 6 to 9, and the result was, they were convinced that 7 to 10 would be the more suitable hours.

§ MR. FIELDEN
expressed his surprise that the Government should favour such a proposal. That question had never once been referred to during the late General Election, in fact, no one for a moment supposed that there would be any attempt to shorten the hours on Sunday evenings. He ventured to say that if it had been for a moment imagined that the Government would favour a proposal to keep the houses closed on Sunday evenings until 7 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would not have occupied the position they now did upon the Treasury bench. The Committee would remember that some years ago Colonel Wilson-Patten proposed to curtail the hours; but such a strong public feeling was raised against it that a Select Committee had to be appointed, which reported against the restriction, and it was abandoned, otherwise he (Mr. Fielden) believed great disturbances would have taken place. He had no doubt whatever that disturbances would occur now if that proposal were adopted. If the Government were determined to carry these restrictions upon the social habits of the people, let them set an example and begin at the top. Why did they not close the clubs, and why should not the bar of the House of Commons be closed at 11 o'clock? If they did that, he should believe they were realty in earnest; but until they did so, he, and, no doubt, working men also, would look upon their professions as mere hypocrisy, and as tending to deprive the working classes of that which they looked upon as being good for them, while the wealthy were allowed to do as they pleased.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that no specific Amendment relating to the point had been placed by any hon. Member on the Notice Paper, and that, therefore, it could scarcely be adequately discussed at that moment. He should, however, take care, if the clause were agreed to, carefully to consider the matter before the Report, when there might be a full discussion upon it.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
believed that in all the country districts 1089 —and he referred more particularly to Wiltshire—there was a general feeling in favour of the Amendment, and therefore he should give it his support.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, the Government could not have pursued any other course than that which they had taken, and that it was the working men themselves who asked that further restrictions should be imposed. He thought the hours proposed would be to the advantage both of the country and the trade, and thanked the Government for adopting them.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, that when Lord Aberdare had brought in his Bill, he (Mr. Goldsmid) had voted against all restrictive proceedings; but the present measure was even more restrictive than that introduced by the late Home Secretary. He considered that the fairest thing which the Government could do would be to leave the hour a blank, and let the question be fully discussed on the Report.

§ MR. DODSON
said, the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken could not be adopted, because there would then be a blank, and the clause would be left absolutely without meaning. Several hon. Members had spoken of the proposal before the Committee as a great and decided restriction; but, in fact, it was only the substitution of one hour for another—a later hour for an earlier—7 and 10 instead of 6 and 9.

§ MR. LOCKE
considered the argument of his right hon. Friend who had just spoken as a most extraordinary one.

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
wished to know, whether the Government would consent to substitute 6 for 7 o'clock, when the question came to be reconsidered before the Report?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
considered that the best course to be adopted was for the Committee to consent to the insertion of the word "seven;" and the Government would fully consider the matter before the Report was brought up.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
rose to a point of Order. He had heard the cry of "No" repeated to the last moment.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that he had announced his opinion that he thought 1090 the Ayes had it three times. It was challenged loudly the first time, but not so loudly the second time. After an interval he declared it again for the third time, and the decision was not then challenged.

§ MR. WATNEY
said, he had challenged the hon. Gentleman's decision, and thought the Committee were about proceeding to a division.

MR. GOLDSMID
said, that if that was the case, the cause was that a number of hon. Members tried to drown the "Noes," by shouts of "Agreed, agreed."

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
said, that he did not hear that the third announcement of the Chairman was challenged by hon. Members, and that in any case it was a mistake which would injure nobody, as Government had promised to give the question full re-consideration before the Report.

§ MR. FIELDEN
said, that on each occasion he had challenged the decision of the Chair.

§ MR. DODSON
said, that he was near to the Chairman when he made the announcement for the third time that the "Ayes had it," and he certainly did not hear that announcement challenged. It would now be out of Order, however, to continue a discussion on the subject.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
thought that there would be a great deal of advantage in securing uniformity of time in reference to the working of the measure. And with a view to that object he would propose as an Amendment, in page 2, after line 14, to insert—"The hours above mentioned shall be reckoned according to the time kept at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich."

MR. GOLDSMID
asked, whether the hon. Baronet proposed that the public-houses should be connected with the Observatory at Greenwich in order to ensure their uniformity.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
said, there would be no occasion for that, as all the railways now were regulated by Greenwich time.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that for several reasons he should have liked to have adopted the Amendment; but he was afraid that most of the publicans, who were the parties concerned, had not the most remote idea of what Greenwich time was.

§ MR. LAIRD
, in moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause, as a separate paragraph, the following Proviso— Provided, That in such municipal boroughs or Improvement Act districts as contain a population of twenty thousand or upwards, houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail shall be kept closed on week days until seven o'clock in the morning, said, he had been a large employer of labour, and had taken considerable interest in the question. When he first commenced business he had from 100 to 200 men in his employ, and further on he had as many as 4,000 men working for him at once. He knew the difference between the opening of public-houses early in the morning and at 7 o'clock, and the result at which he had arrived was, that work was better done, and that the men were better in themselves, through the habit of some of them to drink in the morning not being gratified. He had personally consulted many working men on the subject, and they were one and all of opinion that it was better for public-houses not to open until 7 than at 6 o'clock. The question of keeping public-houses closed until 7 o'clock in the morning had also been exhaustively considered by working men at Birkenhead, and at three open-air meetings they had passed resolutions in favour of the hour of 7. The religious bodies in Birkenhead had also presented Petitions in favour of not opening licensed houses earlier, and so had the county, and stipendiary magistrates. The employers of labour were likewise greatly in favour of 7 o'clock, and no less than 800 working men in one establish-men at Birkenhead, unsolicited by their employers, had petitioned that House in favour of keeping public-houses closed until 7 o'clock. Sir Joseph Whitworth, who was well known to the House as a large employer of labour, had also expressed himself in strong terms in favour of keeping the public-houses closed until 7, and had said it was a great advantage to the working men, as well as to the employers, that that should be so. The same opinions were 1092 expressed in letters sent him from employers of labour in some of the principal towns in the country, including Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, and Liverpool—and in the latter town the steamboat owners and everyone were in favour of keeping the houses closed until the later hour. What he asked the Government to do was no experiment. It had been tried for two years, and had been successful, and those towns which had adopted the opening at 7 o'clock represented 1,600,000 people. He believed that everywhere it had been tried it had worked well, and he hoped the Government would give the Amendment the careful consideration its importance demanded. He had no doubt but that hon. Members—large employers of labour in various towns—would confirm the statements he had made to the House.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
objected that the question was not one for employers of labour and magistrates, but for the wage classes. They were the persons affected, and the Committee should know what their opinions were. For an inquiry of this kind these latter were the persons affected. Very probably neither one of the great employers quoted, nor a single individual among the magistrates mentioned, had ever had occasion to go, or even been in such house. If he wanted his breakfast and could not get it he might then be in a position to give an opinion, but he ventured to think it was of very little comparative consequence what were the views or opinions of Gentlemen who spoke from no practical experience, or ascertained want on this subject. Why was the Committee to change the hour of opening from 6 to 7 o'clock? He had certainly heard no sufficiently good reason for the change. In the district which he represented the wage classes went to work shortly after 6 in the morning, and he saw no valid reason why they should not have the opportunity of getting reasonable refreshment on their road to work.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, he rose to repudiate an observation made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, with reference to the desire of the working classes of this country for early drinking. The hon. Member referred to the opinions of certain large employers of labour; but he (Mr. Macdonald) ventured 1093 to think that he knew as much about the habits of the working men in the country as the hon. Member, and he said the working classes in this country were not addicted to early drinking, and he thought it his duty to vindicate them from the imputation that such was the case.

MR. GRENALL
said, he was decidedly in favour of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Laird). In the borough which he represented, public-houses were opened at 7 o'clock, and continued so until 11 o'clock at night, and that arrangement worked most satisfactorily.

§ MR. NORWOOD
said, he did not understand that the hon. Member for Birkenhead had made any such wholesale imputation upon the working classes as had been supposed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald); and, certainly, to his mind, the words used did not bear the construction put upon them by the hon. Member, nor justified the way in which they had been taken up. With respect to the proposal itself, he could say that the borough he represented had from the first, under the discretionary clauses of the existing Act, taken upon itself the power of fixing the hours of closing and opening, and they had found that the hour of 7 in the morning had worked most beneficially for all parties. In Hull, there were many men engaged in shipbuilding, at the docks, and in various manufactories; they included not only highly skilled artizans, but a large number of unskilled labourers; and the common experience of the large employers was that since they had fixed the hour at 7 they had been enabled to get their men together at 6 o'clock in the morning for a fair start for the day's work. Everything had gone on most satisfactorily alike for workmen and masters. On the contrary, when many of the houses were opened at 6 o'clock, the men were accustomed to drop into the public-houses to get what in his part of the country was called their "pint of early purl." That involved a loss of time both to themselves and their employers, and, unfortunately, some of the men became unfit for work for the day, or the greater part of it. In such large towns as Liverpool, Hull, Gateshead, and others, where the houses were closed until 7, those evils had been obviated; and he hoped that 1094 the Government and the House would allow the hours to remain at the point which had proved in practice so beneficial. He thought that he and others who had voted with the Government on other points had some claim upon them in this matter. He had himself voted for the hour of 11 at night, though he would personally have preferred the hour of 10.30. If they extended the hours to 11 at night and 6 in the morning, it would lead to the extension of an hour and a-half in the working day beyond the period for the sale of drink now permitted in his borough, and produce much dissatisfaction there.

§ MR. MACDONALD
I did not express any opinion whatever on the question of fixing the hour at 7 o'clock, but confined my remarks to a defence of the working classes against imputations which are wholly unfounded.

§ MR. NORWOOD
thought the hon. Member had shown a warmth uncalled for; but his object was to induce the Government to keep to the hours which the large boroughs he had named had fixed for themselves, and which had been followed by a marked absence of the irregularity which prevailed before the hour of opening was fixed at 7 o'clock.

§ LORD ESLINGTON
said, that no man disliked unnecessary restrictive legislation more than he did, and he would never give his consent to any sudden and uncalled for inroads upon the social habits of the people of this country, as he believed that such legislation was mischievous, irritating, and certain to defeat its own object. But with regard to largo towns like Gateshead, about which so much had been heard, and about which he knew something, they had had ample experience to teach them that the Act of 1872 worked fairly well, and for the benefit of the classes affected by it. In that district the hour of 7 for opening had been adopted, and he thought it should be adopted in all populous districts; because if they could check early dram drinking they would effect a great good. Statistics which were not disputed, showed that in some of the great seats of industry, the early attendance of the men at their work, especially on Monday mornings, was much steadier and better than it was when earlier hours of opening were in force. The people of this country objected to change; but when changes 1095 were once effected, it was astonishing how soon they got accustomed to them. He should vote in favour of the proposition to open at 7 o'clock.

§ MR. SHAW LEFEVRE
said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead raised an important question, and one which ought to be considered by the Committee, and dealt with. Four or five of the largest towns, including Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Gateshead, accepting the option given them under the Act of 1872, had adopted the hour of 7 for opening, and the hour so chosen by the inhabitants, through the magistrates, had given almost universal satisfaction. Were, they, then, to deprive those towns of the advantages which they had received from the adoption of 7 o'clock? It was proposed to schedule these towns, of which there were 55, and to make 7 the statutory hour at which they were to open; and although there were many objections to that course, still he preferred it to forcing those towns to open at an earlier hour. He questioned whether the House had done wisely in taking from the local authorities the power of fixing the time of opening and closing. If the opinion of the House should be against the working of the local option, he should support the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) which would schedule those towns which had adopted hours different from those provided in the Bill.

§ MR. STEVENSON
said, he was in favour of 7, and would support any proposal for maintaining that hour in towns where it had been adopted. In Gateshead and the adjoining country district the experience gained was, that they had obtained beneficial results from opening the houses at 7 o'clock. He was a licensing magistrate, for an adjacent district in Tyneside, and he was enabled to say that there was a great probability of their bench adopting at the next Brewster Sessions, the hour of 7 for opening; but if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead were not adopted, they should lose the advantages which they expected would result from the adoption of that course. The feeling in favour of local discretion was not to be measured by the number of cases in which it had been already exercised. He hoped that the power which they—the magistrates—had of causing the 1096 houses not to be opened before 7 in the morning, but which the Bill would take away, would be restored to them by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The working men would no doubt be with them in favour of such a regulation.

§ MR. TORR
, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, said, the feeling in Birkenhead and in Liverpool was so strong in favour of opening public-houses at 7 o'clock, that numerous meetings of operatives, as well as of magistrates and others, had been held in those two large towns to express that opinion; and as an indication of it, he might state to the Committee that he had received no less than 30 telegrams that day from employers of labour on the subject. He would read one of those telegrams, received from a large shipbuilding firm in Liverpool. It was as follows:—"We hope the Government will be induced to make the opening hour of public-houses 7, and not 6 o'clock. We employ 800 men, and we know the evil result of one glass before commencing work." This opening hour was a most important question, affecting the interests of both employers and their workmen, and that was the way in which the matter was looked at by every employer of labour in Liverpool. He was much astonished to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), with reference to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird). There was, probably, not a larger employer of labour, when in business, in that House than the hon. Member for Birkenhead, or one who, for 40 years, had shown greater kindness, or extended more sympathy to those whom he employed. What his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead had stated was, that there were a certain number of public-houses opposite the works of large firms, and that the men on going to their work at 6 o'clock would go in and have a morning glass. In order to show that that was no fallacy, and to point out the annoyance which was occasioned by it, he might be allowed to mention a fact in connection with the subject. One of the large shipbuilding firms in Liverpool set a watchman to take the statistics as to the number of men who frequented these public-houses, and they found that 1097 150 of their men visited these houses in the early morning when they were opened at 6 o'clock; but when the public-houses were opened at 7 o'clock, the men, instead of being tempted, went on with their work; and the firm to which he had alluded found that only two of their men were found in the public-house. The point had been mooted, whether the masters and men were agreed on this question of 7 o'clock opening. One of the firms which had telegraphed to him had, before mating the communication, told their men that they intended doing so, and asked each man to put down the figure 6 or 7 before his name to indicate his choice. That was done, and out of 1,000 men, 800 put the figure 7 against their names; and let him remind the House that this was done without any pressure or indication from their employers as to the hour they should accept. Now, he had reason to know that the employers and workmen in many other of the great firms were thoroughly unanimous in their desire to have the public-houses opened at 7 o'clock; and surely that House ought not to interfere between the employers and their workmen in a desire which tended so greatly to the benefit of both classes. All that was asked by Liverpool and Birkenhead was to be let alone. What was the course which the Government adopted when dealing with the matter two years ago? They said—"We will not take upon ourselves the responsibility of fixing the hours;" and why did they not fix the hour? Because they found towns varied so much—the wants of the population and the habits of the people varied so much, that they thought it better to let the licensing magistrates fix the hour in each town. The Government gave a limit—namely, that the hours should not be earlier than 5, or later than 7. This action of the magistrates had been practically tested for two years, and now the House threatened to interfere. What was the result? Why, that one of its Members received in one day 30 telegrams from large employers of labour, requesting that the existing hour might be continued. The telegrams which he held in his hand represented more than 200 firms, employing between 30,000 and 40,000 working men, chiefly first-class artizans, and forming no small portion 1098 of the entire working class of Liverpool. It would manifestly be an injustice to one of the great centres of industry to alter the hour of opening, which had worked so well and given such general satisfaction for the purpose of carrying out what was alleged to be the system of uniformity. If there was to be uniformity both of opening and closing throughout the Kingdom, there might be some weight in the argument; but uniformity did not exist. In one case, the closing hour was to be 12.30; in another, 11; others 10; and, on Sunday, various hours were adopted. He had much pleasure in seconding the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to sanction that which masters and men alike desired, and which they asked the Committee not to change.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
Sir, I consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead a very important one, and I shall give it my support. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Torr) has placed before the Committee very fully and clearly the circumstances of the case; but, at the same time, I think he has not fairly represented the position in which the Act of 1872 left the magistrates. That Act did not impose upon them the duty of fixing the hours of opening, but made a very strong suggestion as to what it should be, giving them the power of altering it within certain limits. The Act strongly suggested 6 to 10; but I am of opinion that the Committee will not come to the conclusion that there is a very strong feeling in favour of those, hours. The case which has been made out in favour of 7 o'clock is a very strong one, where that proposal has already been adopted; leading us therefore to believe that it would be advantageous to have the same hour in other towns, because there is nothing especial in the circumstances of Liverpool or Birkenhead which removes them from the ordinary run of large towns. In my opinion it would be unfair that those towns which have adopted 7 alone should have the benefit of closing until 7 o'clock, and that other places should not have the advantage of the experience which has been gained by them. We are told that the working of the late hour of 7 o'clock in these large towns has been 1099 remarkably favourable; and I am quite sure, from what I have gathered in the course of this discussion of the opinion of the Committee, that both masters and men are at one upon the point. I think therefore we may take heart of grace from the beneficial working of the 7 o'clock hour in these towns, and I trust that the Government will seriously consider whether they cannot adhere to that hour. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead had no idea of making any attack upon the working classes; and I must be allowed to say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), that I think no hon. Member has a right to say he speaks on behalf of so large a body as the working classes. There can be no doubt that large numbers of that body exhibit as much self-denial under temptation as any other class. No doubt some of them give way to temptation, and it is a condition of the class of legislation now before us, that we have to consider both the small minority as well as the enormous majority. I believe that while the majority are in favour of the opening hours being fixed at 7 o'clock, good would thereby be done to the minority, and I trust, therefore, the Government will adopt the proposal.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
was not surprised at hon. Members speaking in favour of a local and exceptional arrangement when it had been found to work satisfactorily, and he could sympathize with them when an arrangement was likely to be adopted destroying it; but the question was one which must be considered in a broad way. The list of towns where the 7 o'clock opening had been adopted was a small one, not more than 10 out of the whole number of the towns, while the towns, the constituencies of which exceeded 20,000, were an enormous number. The question was, should there be pressed on them that which had been found to work advantageously in a few places; and he thought the same answer applied as when discussing the hours of closing, they gave way to the wishes of the majority of the towns. The matter could not be met in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. If the hon. Gentleman, however, had any other proposal to make in the same direction, and would place its terms on the Notice Paper, the Government would 1100 be prepared to give it every consideration.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that he had hitherto on all occasions voted in favour of shortening the hours for the sale of liquor; but on that occasion he must vote in the opposite direction. In Sheffield the hours for remaining open had been fixed from 6 to 11 o'clock, and the arrangement worked in the most satisfactory manner. There was a special reason why, as regarded Sheffield, the hour of opening should not be altered from 6 o'clock to 7. In most of the factories there the work was carried on by two shifts of artizans. One shift got home at 6 o'clock in the morning, at what they called their supper hour, and dined at 12—midnight—when they commenced work. Well, if the public-houses were not to open until 7 o'clock, those men could not, after the night's severe toil, have their glass of beer, and that would be hard indeed upon them, when they had often been heard to say that a glass of beer was worth a shilling at that hour in the morning. If they limited so much the hours during which refreshments were to be obtained, they would raise such a spirit against the Act in the large towns as to render it unworkable.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
said, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead on this Amendment. It was true that Liverpool and Hull had adopted the hon. Member's principle; but could it be said that that was a reason why the House should adopt it in towns with about 20,000 inhabitants, who might probably object to it? A great number of very considerable towns would be affected by the change, and, as he thought, very disadvantageously. He protested against the doctrine that the House had to take into consideration the view of the employers of labour only. That might be as it was represented to be; but how did they know what were the views of the employed? Two years had elapsed since the passing of the Bill, and the magistrates had not made the proposed change; yet who could doubt that it would have been made had it been completely and clearly consonant with the general public feeling? Besides that, they had numerical tests enough in the Bill already, and he did not wish to see them multiplied. They had in the Bill already 10,000, 2,500, 1101 and now it was proposed that they should have 20,000. He retained the opinion which he expressed on the question in 1872, of uniformity in the hours of closing; but he was not going to discuss it now, as the Committee had declared itself in favour of 11 o'clock as the closing hour for towns above 2,500, and of 10 for towns below it. He regretted the decision thus come to. The hours of opening had nothing to do with drunkenness, though the hours of closing might. ["Oh, oh!"] He defied anyone to say that the opening of a public-house at 6 instead of 7 tended to increase drunkenness. He should vote against the Amendment.

§ MR. BIRLEY
, in supporting the Amendment, alluded to the discomforts which would arise to the publicans themselves in the event the hours of business were lengthened. He was of opinion that the publicans themselves, as well as the public, should be somewhat considered in this matter. There was a general concurrence throughout the country, as shown by public meetings, Petitions, and meetings of magistrates, in favour of shortening the hours during which public-houses and beerhouses were to be kept open, and it was also shown that a large number of publicans were in favour of the shorter hours, all they asked for being fair play towards all. If the hours were shortened, also, families of working men would be in better circumstances than if the men were exposed to the demoralization which went on at these places. It was to him very extraordinary that when there existed such a feeling in the Legislature and throughout the country for shortening the hours of labour—next week a Bill would come before the House for shortening the hours of labour in factories—Parliament should be in favour of lengthening the hours for publicans and their employés. The Motion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead was not open to the objection regarding clubs, as clubs did not open at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and the Committee might therefore freely accept the Amendment on that score. He admitted that on this question there existed differences of opinion. In the city he had the honour to represent there were differences, and some people would probably suffer by the change; but it was clear that in these matters for the general good there 1102 must be a sacrifice made somewhere. No doubt, that at Sheffield and similar towns where the double shift system was carried on, some inconvenience would at first be felt; but there could be no doubt that people would soon adapt themselves to circumstances. He hoped that the principle of shorter hours would be adopted, even in the interest of the publicans themselves.

§ MR. CAWLEY
said, he objected to any hard-and-fast line. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Newark with respect to his view of the two years' experience of the Act of 1872, and he was satisfied that if it had had a longer trial the hour of 7 for opening on week days would have been much more extensively adopted. The result was, so far, encouraging, and he had no doubt that 7 would have been the hour eventually adopted in towns under the Act of 1872. The hon. Member for Liverpool wished to stereotype what had been done within the last two years, but that was not right or just. They should leave a certain discretion with the magistrates of every locality to adopt or change the hours of opening from 5 to 7 in the morning as they thought proper.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
said, that being inclined to favour greater elasticity in legislation on this subject than many hon. Gentlemen seemed willing to adopt, he thought the present question was one which required hon. Members to be perfectly acquainted with the circumstances connected with the towns and cities of the Kingdom. It was a very complicated question, and most difficult to be got out of. It was only last night that a great majority of the House voted against any extension of time beyond 6 o'clock in the country; but it was generally understood that if a hard-and-fast line were drawn, they would be inflicting an inconvenience on vast numbers of the people of this country. He thought, therefore, that local feelings and requirements should be consulted, as suggested by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley). But in the great Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead there was no grievance at all, for a working man could get any beer he wanted for his dinner, or any other meal; but surely he did not require it at 6 o'clock in the morning. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

§ MR. BULWER
said, he had never heard anything more insulting to the working men of the country than the language used by many hon. Gentlemen in the course of that debate. They were, by the Bill, confessedly legislating for a minority of the people; but in doing so they imposed every restriction they possibly could on the majority. It was announced out-of-doors, on many platforms, and in many electioneering addresses from hon. Gentlemen opposite lately, that the working men were the very incarnation of all the virtues, and possessed complete political intelligence—'So much, in fact, that the late Prime Minister had invited them, at a moment's notice, to give their opinion upon a financial scheme, involving the abolition of the income tax, coupled with an equitable re-adjustment of taxation. But in that House they were treated as children and fools, in whose path they dare not leave the door of a single public-house open, lest they should ruin themselves and their families. That was a gross calumny, and for his own part he thought better of the working men, and was of opinion that the fewer the restrictions they had the more desirable it was. It was not fair to impose on the great majority of people who did not get drunk the annoyance and inconvenience of these restrictions. He would remind the Committee that formerly it was the habit of the class to which hon. Members of that House belonged to indulge freely in their cups; but that practice had now happily ceased—thanks, not to restrictive Acts of Parliament, but to progress in civilization, if not in morality; and so would the alleged intemperance of a minority of the working classes. If they could not safely at present do away with all restrictions, let them be made as light and as elastic as possible.

§ MR. SAMUDA
said, they were now in a different position from that of 1872. Then they passed a Bill regulating the hours of opening and closing public-houses, but leaving to the magistrates a discretion to decide upon them according to local circumstances. Now, however, it was totally different. They proposed by the Bill to fix the hour by law, and to relieve the magistrates from all responsibility. Then came the question as to what that hour should be which would suit the majority in a neighbourhood or a locality, and let the minority 1104 be bound by it. For his own part he had so strong an opinion for lessening the hours of drinking that he was inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead; but in consequence of the extremely serious evils it would inflict on an unoffending majority, he came to the resolution to give it every opposition in his power. They were now dealing with a restricted monopoly—the publicans—and it was necessary for them to compel that restricted monopoly to yield that amount of accommodation which was required by the majority of the public.

§ MR. LAIRD
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that the Government might perhaps, with my assistance, be enabled to draw a clause to meet the difficulty. There has been a great objection to the clause as it stands at present. What we want is to be left alone as far as towns containing large populations which have adopted 7 o'clock are concerned, such as Birkenhead. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and I will endeavour between now and when the Report is brought up, to communicate with the Home Secretary as to whether we can agree upon a clause to meet the case. Under these circumstances it will not be advantageous to proceed further with the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
I hope before the Question is put from the Chair that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) will understand that the Government do not see their way to framing any such clause to meet the case.

ADMIRAL ELLIOT
said, he had not spoken during the debate. He had only a few words to say. He was not one of those who had at any time mistaken Her Majesty's Government as to the course they would pursue, because he understood from the first from the Home Secretary, that as regarded the hours of opening and closing to be inserted in the Bill, the question was to be an open question. He was quite prepared, therefore, under these circumstances, to find himself in one Lobby with some of Her Majesty's Ministers, whilst others went to vote in the other Lobby. "With respect to opening the public-houses at 7 o'clock, he should—representing as he 1105 did a large working class constituency—vote for opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock. He thought that Her Majesty's Government, who were large employers of labour, ought to show some consideration to their employés. There were some 18,000 men employed in the Government Dockyards, and those men had to be in the Dockyards at 6 o'clock in the morning. If the public-houses were not opened, and the men enabled to get some refreshment before they went to their work, they had to go to the Dockyards and had no refreshment until 12 o'clock in the day. He said if they did not allow the public-houses to be opened before 7 o'clock, they debarred these men from obtaining that refreshment in the morning, which he believed was necessary for them in order to do that work which they had to perform. He denied they could make men either sober or religious by Act of Parliament. On the contrary, his experience led him to believe that indulgence conduced more to sobriety than restrictions did, and that where going to Divine Worship was left optional with men they were the more ready to attend it. Many of the speeches which he had heard that night in that House on the subject would never have been made on the hustings in the face of working men, and he considered that many of the remarks which had been made were most insulting to the working-men of the country and most undeserved.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that as the provisions as to hours contained in the clause, had been embodied in the preceding clause which had just been agreed to, he should move the omission of the one under notice.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
said, before that Motion was put he wished to say a few words, although they were not against the withdrawal of the clause. He considered that the Committee had made a very great mistake in doing 1106 away with the discretionary power of the local bench of magistrates.

§ MR. MELLY
said, he wished to ask the Home Secretary, whether it would not be wise to put some words in the clause as to the exempted houses; so as to make sure that the exemptions should cease on the passing of the Act? Would it not be wise to insert words of this description in the Act?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
I will consider that question.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, what exemptions existed under the present Act?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the 26th and 27th sections of the principal Act. The sections are too long to read now; but the hon. and learned Gentleman will there find a list of the existing exemptions.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he did not think that that was quite an answer to his question. What he wished to know was what exemptions existed then?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
I repeat, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find them in the sections of the Act which I have mentioned.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he had received a letter from a gentleman connected with the town of Liverpool, which stated that there was some difficulty in applying the measure to that town, as it would in some degree clash with a local Act. The clause provided that some of the houses might open at 12.30 instead of 1 o'clock, in order that the people should get beer for their dinner; but the gentleman stated in his letter that that would be impossible under the local Act. Therefore, in order to avoid that difficulty, he proposed to insert the words at the beginning of the clause—"Notwithstanding anything in this or any local Act contained."

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved, in lines 21 and 22, to leave out "when situate in any place beyond the metropolitan district."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the object of the clause was to enable houses situated in districts where the hours of Divine "Worship varied, to be closed or opened according to public requirements. That variation was not required in the metropolis, and the convenience of the public would be promoted in other places.

§ MR. CHARLEY
said, that being so, he would withdraw the Amendment.

§ MR. CHARLEY
moved, in line 28, after "o'clock," to insert— (b.) That such premises shall he closed in the afternoon from half-past six till eight o' clock, and in that case such premises shall remain closed only until half-past four in the afternoon. The object of his Amendment was to enable the magistrates to deal with the evening as well as the afternoon service.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was sorry to have to object to that Amendment also.

§ MR. MELLY
moved, in line 28, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "seven."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
observed that the question was to be decided on the bringing up of the Report; but he had no objection, subject to that condition, to the word being inserted.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved the insertion of words in line 40, the object of which was to give the applicant for a licence, who was desirous of closing his house at an earlier hour of the night than usual, the option of opening "later in the morning."

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might withdraw the Amendment, or put it in a more modified form, as it looked as if it were proposed in the interests of the publicans, and not in the interests of the public. He did not at all object to 1108 the clause, as it was one that he thought might work very well; but if they adopted the proposed Amendment, they evidently placed in the hands of the magistrates the power of saying to a person who came before them for a licence—"You shall have a licence, provided you take the shorter licence." Thereby they placed the option in the hands of the magistrates, instead of in the hands of the publican. And what would be the result? There were many large towns—such as Manchester, Sal-ford, Liverpool, and others—where such an option might be worked so as seriously to interfere with the public convenience.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
replied that the provision was in accordance with the principle of the existing Act, by which persons who chose to apply for six-day licences were entitled to have them at a lower rate than that paid for seven-day licences.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, that applied only to Sundays, but this clause referred to week-day licences.

§ MR. MELLY
said, he did not object to the clause; on the contrary, he thought it was a very good one. But where would be the advantage of the Amendment if it enabled the magistrates, when application was made for these licences for closing at an earlier hour at night, or opening at a later hour in the morning, to grant licences which, instead of fixing the hard-and-fast line which was desired, caused houses to be kept open in the same district at different hours? In fact, the option would practically be placed in the hands of the magistrates, and they would have the same difference in the hours as had caused such general complaints.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he wanted to know where the words of the right hon. Gentleman would come in?

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether the publican would pay a less sum for his licence if he opened an hour later in the morning; and did his right hon. Friend mean it to be a remission of duty in the case of opening an hour later or closing an hour earlier, or both?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
Not twice over. A Sunday closing licence gets a remission, or opening an hour later gets a remission; but you cannot get two remissions.

§ MR. MELLY
said, the publican could get two remissions, each of one-seventh, if he not only closed on Sundays but opened an hour later on week days.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
Look at Clause 7, and you will see. I will, however, take care that the clause shall be altered when I bring it up on Report.

§ MR. MELLY
Would it not be better not to insert Amendments at all, but to take them on Report?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
Very well; I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
said, that the amount of duty which would be remitted to persons taking out early-closing licences would vary from one halfpenny to three-halfpence per day, and he thought therefore that the provision was perfectly useless, as there were few men who would not prefer to keep their houses open to saving one halfpenny per day.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, he was of a different opinion, and would like to see a still wider option given to publicans as to the hours of keeping their houses open. It would be a great advantage to public morality if a fair allowance in the cost of the licence was made on short-hour licences, and if that system was encouraged, he believed it would effect a great deal of good.

§ MR. NAGHTEN
, as an Amendment, moved in page 4, line 34, to leave out the words "although purchased before the hours of closing," and at the end, to add— Provided always, That in all cases under this Act where any person shall have entered licensed premises before the hours for closing-mentioned in this Act, he shall be entitled to remain in such licensed premises for the purpose of consuming any liquors that he may have purchased before the hour of closing for any reasonable time not exceeding a quarter of au hour.

§ MR. WATNEY
said, that publicans were bound to serve their customers up to the last minute of closing their houses; and whether the Committee accepted the Amendment or not, it would be necessary 1110 to have it understood whether liquors could be consumed after 12.30; because, if not, the publican would have to leave off serving a few minutes before closing time.

§ MR. ASSHETON
argued that the Amendment would have the effect, if carried, of adding a quarter-of-an-hour to the time of closing. It was desirable for them to see precisely what they were doing. The Home Secretary had pleaded, as an excuse for putting on the extra half-hour in London, that public-houses were virtually open 20 minutes beyond the time specified in the Act of 1872, the metropolitan magistrates having decided that a reasonable time should be given for the consumption of the liquors obtained before the hour of closing, and it was partly on this ground that the House accepted the hour of 12.30.

§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL
said, after the debate of Monday night, he had determined not to press an Amendment which he had put on the Paper to effect the object of this Amendment.

§ MR. MELLY
looked upon the clause as most valuable, for it got rid of all the questions whether the liquor found in the hands of the customer was bought five minutes before or five minutes after the closing hours. There was not a magistrate in England who would not find his hands strengthened by the clause as it stood.

§ COLONEL LEIGH
thought this was a sort of case de minimis non curat lex. If a man ordered a glass of spirits or a pint of beer, how long would it take him to drink it, when told the place must be closed? About a minute and a-half. The discussion of the Amendment ought to take up no more time. He thought they might pass this clause sub silentio.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the only object he had in putting these words in the clause was really to carry out the intention of the Act of 1872, which he thought in this particular had been misread.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
wished to know what effect those minutes of grace would have on other towns as well as London? Were those towns also to have their minutes of grace as well as London? Would the hon. Member for Carlisle offer any explanation on this subject, for the Bill, though nominally conducted by the Government, was really conducted by the Opposition benches? 1111 There was no doubt they had shortened the hours in the towns by half-an-hour, and had lengthened the hours in London by half-an-hour, and now proposed to give London a quarter of an hour's grace. They should not make the line so hard and sharp in determining the particular hour for the country towns, while they gave a quarter of an hour's grace to London. He would ask the Home Secretary, why he gave an additional half-hour to London and 15 or 20 minutes grace, while he cut off half-an-hour from the country towns? The country towns must feel very sharply the contrast between the terms proposed for them and for London. Oxford and other towns would feel that the price of the boon was the purchase of the satisfaction of the licensed victuallers of London. ["Oh, oh!"] That feeling was very strong throughout the country. The country towns were exasperated at the contrast between the treatment of them and London. They had taken off an hour in the country and had extended the time in London. He would now ask the Home Secretary, whether he intended to extend the same generosity to the country traders which was accorded to the people of London?

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was misrepresenting the country traders. The only thing they were anxious about was that there should be one closing time throughout the country districts, and he believed they would be quite willing to accept the hour of 11 as that time. If a man was found standing at the bar of a public-house with a glass of brandy before him which he had paid for, but not consumed, at 11.30, the case was brought before a magistrate, and the country trader would be placed in a difficulty. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) thought it bettor to leave this matter to the discretion of the magistrate, who would be bettor qualified to say whether there was an intentional violation of the law.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the original Bill provided that liquors were not to be served after a certain hour. The London magistrates had some doubts as to the moaning of the Act, and he would repeat he had put in a few words to correct an apparent ambiguity.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
inquired what would be the position of a victualler who opened his house for the sale of other things than intoxicating liquors during the hours of closing? A good deal of tea and coffee was sold in public-houses, particularly in the markets.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that there was no clause to prohibit that mode of business.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
in moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 41, to leave out "to bonâ fide travellers or;" and in line 42, after "house," to insert— Or to bonâ fide travellers except between the hours of seven in the morning and one in the afternoon of Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday, said, he did not object to affording every convenience to a bonâ fide traveller to obtain liquor, provided it could be done without harm to the public. Persons, however, made use of the name bonâ fide travellers when they could not get drink at any other place than in the rural districts, and they started from their homes a couple of hours earlier than they could procure it in town. Under a false pretence they got into the public-houses, and they remained there the whole day, an annoyance not less to the inhabitants of the place than to the publicans themselves. Doing away with the bonâ fide traveller exemption altogether was, of course, out of the question; but what he asked the House was, that the publicans should not be called upon to open their houses and to destroy the advantage of the restrictions under this Act between the hours of 7 in the morning and I in the afternoon of Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. Bail-way travellers were always provided for in regard to refreshment. There might be some inconvenience caused to persons driving by road, but it would be small when compared with the advantages which were certain to arise if his Amendment were ratified by the House. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
failed to see why the bonâ fide traveller should not have what refreshment he required on Sunday morning between the hours of 7 and I as well as in any other part of the day.

§ MR. RATHBONE
pronounced the bonâ fide traveller as the greatest impostor who was known to the local magistrates. He was merely a person who went into the country for the purpose of getting drink two or three hours in advance of the time it could be procured nearer home. Licensed victuallers themselves complained greatly of the abuse of the term.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN
said, it was difficult to argue with Gentlemen who—like the hon. Member for Liverpool—began by stating that bonâ fide travellers were not bonâ fide travellers; but that, in fact, this was a class to which no one really grudged refreshments at any time; and the more reasonable course would be for hon. Gentlemen to apply themselves to the satisfactory definition in the Bill of the words "bonâ fide traveller," so far as it was possible to define them.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
reminded the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that passengers by the Cunard boats from America who arrived at early hours of the morning in the Mersey were bonâ fide travellers, and yet the Representatives of that town would not have them accommodated with refreshment at one of the Liverpool hotels between the hours of 7 and 1 o'clock on Sundays. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped the Committee would not listen to any such proposal.

§ MR. GREGORY
reminded the Committee that two of the Judges had held that persons who, as ostensible bonâ fide travellers, went to a public-house or tavern solely for the purpose of taking liquor, could not be considered as such, and did not come within the purview of the Act. The privilege was never intended to apply to persons travelling for pleasure, but only to persons actually engaged in business.

§ SIR JOHN HAY
said, that in Scotland there was no difficulty in dealing with the bonâ fide traveller question, and 1114 he would suggest the adoption of the definition of a bonâ fide traveller which was given in the Forbes-Mackenzie Act.

§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEY
said, he had taken some trouble in ascertaining in what manner "the bonâ fide traveller" affair was worked on Sunday. He found that respectable publicans, who desired to abide by the law, closed their houses at 1 o'clock, and they were not troubled with "bonâ fide travellers." The less well-conducted houses were closed, but touts were stationed outside, who said to any one who approached—"Traveller, sir; traveller, sir?" thus giving a sort of invitation; and everybody was allowed to walk into the house so represented, and allowed to remain there so long as they pleased, and drink what they liked. In one instance he found omnibuses ran on Sundays, and on no other day of the week, to a public-house just outside the metropolitan district radius, where people were supplied with liquor indiscriminately. The result was, he saw enough to convince him the privilege was abused in every possible way, and he thought a well-defined line should be drawn as to who were and who were not "travellers." In reference to what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford he would remark that a person who proceeded from a Cunard steamer to the Adelphi Hotel became a lodger there.

§ COLONEL LEIGH
said, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had spoken of bonâ fide travellers, whereas the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone's) observations were applicable only to malâ fide travellers.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
said, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London, he felt bound to press his Amendment to a division.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
, in moving as an Amendment, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from after "traveller" to "dismiss" in line 13, and insert the words "the justices shall dismiss," said, its purpose was to give effect to what he thought must be intended, but which the clause, as it stood, would not enact. The clause provided that in case the 1115 publican should be unable to prove that a person to whom he had sold intoxicating liquor was a bonâ fide traveller, that the justices were satisfied that he truly believed that the purchaser was a bonâ fide traveller, and had taken all reasonable means to ascertain that he was, it should— be lawful for the justices to dismiss the case as against the defendant, and if they think that the purchaser falsely represented himself to be a bonâ fide traveller, to direct proceedings to be instituted against such purchaser under the twenty-fifth section of the principal Act. Publicans had no means of ascertaining whether a customer was a bonâ fide traveller, and yet had over and over again been convicted for not having done so. He thought it was intended that if it appeared that the publican had done his best to discover whether a customer was a bonâ fide traveller the case against him should be dismissed. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the discretionary phrase, and in order to do so, would move the Amendment.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
thought that if there was to be a compulsory duty in the one case there should be a corresponding one on the other, and that it should be compulsory on the magistrates to direct that proceedings be instituted if there appeared to be mala fides.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, thinking it a fair and right one.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was also willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), relative to the bonâ fide travellers, as it was in substance the same proposition as that of the Government.

§ MR. MELLY
said, he had put an Amendment on the subject of the bonâ fide traveller on the Paper, because he had thought it undesirable that the bonâ fide. traveller should be defined. Mr. Justice Mellor had laid it down that the expression was in each case to be construed by the common sense of the justice that tried it. The only question was, whether it was desirable that the bonâ fide traveller should be further defined, and, if so, in what terms? Every magistrate would know that great use would be made of any definition as a 1116 direction to magistrates not to convict when persons had gone three miles, though merely to drink, and if that was to be so, nearly the whole, or probably 95 out of 100 persons would not be convicted. The "bonâ fide traveller" meant illicit Sunday morning drinking, which was hated by all respectable publicans, and encouraged by very few, who thus took an unfair advantage of their neighbours, and the Sunday morning drinking led to more misery among the labouring classes than anything. It had become a universal system now. He would read to the Committee a letter he had received from a gentleman on the subject. That letter stated that tramway cars ran to one of the suburbs of the metropolis every Sunday morning. Those tramway cars ran every five minutes, and the passengers were charged 3d., and publicans servants met every car to invite them into public-houses to drink, with the words, "Travellers, sir?" He merely placed this argument before the Committee with the view of asking the Committee as to whether the law ought to exist as at present. He objected to the clause as it stood, not because it was the enunciation of a law, but it was the giving of advice as to who was a bonâ fide traveller, instead of leaving it as before, to be decided on the merits of each case.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
begged to move in the words of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), in page 5, line 18, to leave out all after the word "unless" to the end of the clause, for the purpose of inserting— the place where he lodged during the preceding night is at least three miles distant from the place where he demands to be supplied with liquor, such distance to be calculated in a straight line on the ordnance map. He hoped that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. BULWER
thought that the insertion of the words proposed would only add to the difficulty of defining a bonâ fide traveller. In point of fact, if the matter were left as it was, there would be no difficulty at all, for any bench of magistrates of common sense knew well to decide at once what it meant; whereas, if the words proposed were added, the magistrates would not be relieved from any difficulty they felt at present; but would have the further difficulty of de- 1117 ciding what the exact distance was, what was the meaning of the word "lodged," and what was meant by the "preceding night."

§ MR. WYKEHAM MARTIN
thought otherwise, and in his experience as a magistrate often saw great difficulties arise in the discussion of the question.

§ MR. MELLY
moved, as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, the substitution of the word "five" for "three."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could not agree to the proposition.

§ MR. MELLY
feeling that the decision of the Committee would be against his proposal, said he would not trouble the Committee to divide upon it.

§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL
said, he would withdraw an Amendment he had on the Paper with respect to refreshment-house keepers.

§ MR. FAWCETT
asked what course Government intended to take with reference to the time of bringing forward the seven great measures mentioned by the Primo Minister on the previous evening?

§ MR. DISRAELI
stated that he would take the Committee on the Bill the first thing on Monday, and when that was disposed of, he would bring forward the Educational Estimates, and take the Factories Bill upon Thursday the 11th.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the Prime Minister had said that supposing the Licensing Bill were got through that night, the Education Estimates would be taken next Monday; it would now be convenient to know at what time.

§ MR. DISRAELI
in reply, said, that as it was uncertain how long the Licensing Bill would take, it would be better to fix the Education Estimates on 1118 Monday week. In that case, after the Licensing Bill on Monday, the Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act would be taken.