Commons Sitting of 18 June 1874

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), Lord Kensington added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Shannon Navigation* [157].
First Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* [158]; Church Patronage (Scotland)* [159].
Second Reading—Juries (Ireland) * [153]; Colonial Attorneys Relief Act Amendment* [145]; Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) * [95], debate
Committee—Municipal Privileges (Ireland) (re-comm.) * [119]—R.P.; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Act (1863) Amendment* [126]—R.P.; Working Men's Dwellings * [22]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order* [131]; Conveyancing and Land Transfer (Scotland) (re-comm.) * [105–156]; Conjugal Rights (Scotland) Act Amendment * (re-comm.) * [147].
Considered as amended—Intoxicating Liquors [139], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers)* [133].
Withdrawn—Muncipal Corporations (Disposition of Penalties) * [59]; Rabbits* [100].

NAVY—WHITWORTH ORDNANCE TRIALS.—QUESTION.
ADMIRAL EGERTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any communications have passed between the Admiralty and Sir Joseph Whitworth, relative to the trial of two pieces of ordnance lately constructed by him, and whether it is intended to carry out any experiments therewith?
MR. HUNT, in reply, said, that communications had passed between the Admiralty and Sir Joseph Whitworth upon the subject, and the Admiralty had decided not to accept his offer of a trial.

ARMY—LORD AYLESFORD AND THE WARWICKSHIRE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.—QUESTION.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that since he replied to the hon. Member for Swansea's (Mr. Dillwyn's) Question, touching the late disturbance at Leamington Station, Lord Aylesford has sent a written apology to the Great Western Railway Company for his "over zeal," and has also paid a sum of money to the railway servants with whom he came into collision; and, whether the Military authorities intend to take any further steps in the matter?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member for Swansea was good enough to show me some correspondence, which I have no doubt is accurate, and from which it appears that Lord Aylesford has made an apology for his indiscretion, and that he has paid something to the railway officials with whom he came into collision; but it is not on account of his having made an apology that I think it necessary to take any further steps in connection with the military authorities.

ARMY—DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL—FELTHAM SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Paymaster General, Whether it is true that boys of the Duke of York's School have been sent into the country lately to play a match against the boys of a Reformatory, and the boys from the Reformatory allowed to come to London to play a return match?
MR. STEPHEN CAVE: Sir, an eleven from the Duke of York's School went some time ago into the country, under the charge of the Commandant, to play a cricket match with an eleven from Feltham School, and were thoroughly beaten. I believe that a return match is in contemplation. But Feltham is an Industrial, not a Reformatory School, as mentioned in the Question of the hon. Baronet, the broad distinction between the two—a distinction pertinent to this Question—being that no lad can be taken into the Army or Navy from a Reformatory; whereas from Feltham last year 36 lads entered the Army and eight the Navy. With regard to the Feltham eleven, I understand that none have ever been convicted, and that they are equal in point of respectability to the ordinary run of boys in the Duke of York's School and to the recruits with whom these will have to associate when they enlist for service.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would put a further Question on the subject.

CRIMINAL LAW—SENTENCE ON WILLIAM VENABLES.—QUESTION.
MR. FORSYTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that last week, in the Police Court of Bolton, a man named William Venables was convicted of savagely, and without any provocation, kicking, with iron-shod clogs, a woman named Ellen Hindley and her baby, and was sentenced to only three months' imprisonment; and, if he can explain why the full punishment of six months' imprisonment was not inflicted?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had made inquiries into the case referred to by the hon. Member, and found that the Question treated a great many things as facts which were not so. The communication which he had re-
72
ceived from the magistrates stated that, in their opinion, there had not been any savagery; that the provocation offered was very great; that the kicks upon Ellen Hindley were not of a serious nature, as they only caused mere discoloration of the skin; and that there was no evidence whatever that the child was kicked or injured besides an abrasion, which was not supposed to arise from a kick. Therefore, the magistrates did not inflict the full punishment of six months' imprisonment. He might remind his hon. Friend that, though he had the power of recommending a remission of punishment when it was considered too great, he had not the power, where magistrates had in their discretion ordered a particular punishment, of inflicting a severer sentence.

THE CUSTOMS—STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
MR. C. E. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Petition of Clerks in the Statistical Department of Her Majesty's Customs, presented some months ago to the Lords of the Treasury, has been referred to the Commission of Inquiry into the Civil Service; and, if not, whether there is any objection to such a course?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, it was not thought desirable to refer the Petition in question to the Civil Service Inquiry Commission, as it related to cases of individual hardship, the Committee having been appointed to consider the organization of the service rather than such cases of hardship.

NAVY—H. M. S. "ABOUKIR."

  QUESTION.
  MR. ERNEST NOELasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, it is true that in the month of November last the yellow fever broke out on board Her Majesty's Ship "Aboukir" at Port Royal, and that in a crew of two hundred and forty Europeans there were a hundred and twenty cases of the fever, twenty-one of which were fatal; whether the ship was then cleaned out and the crew sent to the North; that now orders have been despatched for their return to the "Aboukir" at a season when the fever is likely to break out again, and that this has been done in opposition to the opinion of the medical

  73
  authorities; whether this ship was surveyed and condemned twelve months ago, the officers who conducted the survey recommending, on sanitary grounds, that she should be either burnt or sunk; and, whether the Admiralty are in a position to send out any ship to replace her?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, reports of the outbreak of yellow fever on board the Aboukir were received at the Admiralty at the end of December last. Previous to the receipt of this intelligence a body of supernumeraries, numbering 140, had been sent to Jamaica en route to the Pacific Station. At the time of the outbreak, which was caused by a marine returning from leave—yellow fever being prevalent in the town of Kingston—there were about 283 officers and men on board. Besides cases of ordinary fever, 33 cases of yellow fever occurred, of which 21 in all were fatal, some of these being seamen living on shore as the Commodore's boat's crew. On receipt of the news of the outbreak of fever, orders were sent on the 1st of January last by telegraph to the Commodore at Jamaica to move the officers and men into barracks or tents on shore, and, if necessary, to charter a ship to take the sick to Halifax or Bermuda. Previous, however, to the receipt of these orders, the Commodore had considered it expedient to embark the officers and men of the Aboukir on board Her Majesty's Ships Sphinx, Niobe, and Seagull, and to send them to the northern division of the station. The Commodore also adopted vigorous measures for cleansing, fumigating, and ventilating the ship, and on the return on the 27th of April of the Sphinx with the regular crew of the Aboukir, the supernumeraries having gone on to their destination, he was of opinion that they might without danger be re-embarked in their own ship, in which opinion the Deputy Inspector of Hospitals concurred. No order, however, for their re-embarkation had been sent from England. At the end of May the Commodore reported that, although objections had been offered by the new Deputy Inspector General of Hospitals and the Staff Surgeon of the ship to the re-embarkation of the crew, which had been carried out with the concurrence of the previous Deputy Inspector, he was of opinion that there was no danger of a
  74
  fresh outbreak; but that the vessel was not permanently fit for a receiving ship, and that fresh cases of fever might occur at the unhealthy season of the year. After due consideration of this Report, it was decided to prepare Her Majesty's Ship Urgent with the utmost despatch to take the place of the Aboukir, and instructions were sent by the last mail to the Commodore, in case of any fresh outbreak, to remove the crew to quarters on shore, and to employ native seamen, who were not so susceptible of infection, as far as possible on the duties of the ship. The ship was surveyed in March, 1873, was reported unfit to go to sea, and the surveying officers recommended that as soon as relieved she should be sold. In a subsequent Report of the 10th of May, 1873, she was reported to be healthy and sweet.

ARMY—PAY OF COLONELS OF CAVALRY—WARRANT OF 1863.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will, with a view to its remedy, consider the injustice done to the superior officers of the Cavalry by a late warrant reducing the pay of a Colonel of a Cavalry Regiment to that of one of Infantry; whether his attention has been called to the fact, that although these officers received the difference between Cavalry and Infantry when they retired on half pay, yet that they had for many years been losing the interest of and risking with their lives very much larger sums on their commissions than officers of corresponding rank in the Infantry; and, whether he is aware that when Mr. Sydney Herbert equalized the prices of Army Commissions, he, for the above and other reasons, did not think it right to reduce the emoluments of Cavalry Colonels?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, my attention has been called by the Question put to me by the gallant General to the Warrant to which he has referred. Up to 1860 the price of Cavalry Commissions was much higher than that of Infantry Commissions, but it was then equalized by Mr. Sidney Herbert. The rates of pay were also higher than in the Infantry. When Mr. Herbert equalized the price of Army Commissions, he proposed, and had the assent of the Horse Guards to the propositions,

  75
  first that Cavalry Officers who had exchanged to Infantry or with a half-pay Infantry Officer and received the difference should not, as previously, be required to repay the difference before they could be appointed Colonels of Cavalry Regiments, but that in lieu of such repayment they should only receive the pay of an Infantry Colonelcy on appointment to a Cavalry Regiment as Colonel; secondly, that these who had paid the old Cavalry rate for their Field Officers' Commissions should be allowed the Cavalry rate of Colonel's pay; thirdly that these who had not paid the old rates should receive Infantry rates of pay. To this third proposition the Horse Guards did not assent, and in consequence Mr. Herbert made a further proposal, with a view to the more speedy establishment of one rate of Colonels' pay, to pay from the Reserve Fund to Officers of Classes 2 and 3 any difference on the value of their Commissions to which they might be entitled. These intentions of Mr. Herbert were not carried into effect by Warrant, and, therefore, remained unfulfilled until the Warrant of last year was issued.
  GENERAL SHUTEgave Notice that, in consequence of the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, and as the case deeply affected the vested rights and interests of Cavalry officers, he should on an early clay call the attention of the House to the whole subject.

CHANCERY COURTS (IRELAND)—THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'NEILLasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will explain to the House why the Office of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, Ireland, should be closed for the purpose of making up accounts from the first of August till the second of November, during which time no one can receive dividends due on money lodged in this Court, while in England the office of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery is kept open for the payment of dividends during the whole year?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)in reply, said, that he was not aware whether the offices referred to were closed during as long a time as was mentioned in the Question
  76
  of the hon. Member. It was proposed, however, by the Judicature Bill for Ireland to take power to deal with all matters of the kind, and to make rules both for the Courts and the Offices connected with them. It was, therefore, not necessary to pursue the question further at present.

LICENSING SYSTEM (SCOTLAND)—A ROYAL COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has been rightly understood as having said that, owing to urgent representations which had been made to Her Majesty's Government, it was intended to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the Licensing System in Scotland; and, if so, whether he will state from whom these representations proceeded?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: No; I have never said, that I am aware of, that "urgent representations" had been made to me to grant this Commission. I have said many representations have been made to me, and so they have. I have received several deputations in regard to the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Anstruther), and a great number of gentlemen who have come upon that matter have asked the Government to issue a Royal Commission on this question; but I have never given any opinion upon it, nor have I laid the matter before the Government.

UNION BOUNDARIES IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state the reasons why the townlands of Kilmanahan and Kilnamack West, distant from Clonmel Union Work-house two and a half miles, were severed from that union and added to Clogheen Union, being distant from the latter union workhouse nine and a half miles; whether there is any sufficient reason for causing the paupers to travel nine and a half miles to a workhouse where they are unknown, whilst there is one within two and a half miles; whether the Report of the Poor Law Inspector, when desired to investigate the matter, was favourable to the continued severance of these townlands or otherwise; and whe-

  77
  ther the Government intend to take any action in the matter?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, the arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was made in 1849 by the Boundaries Commissioners. It was made on various grounds, one of which was that the townlands in question belonged to the proprietor of a considerable portion of the rest of the union to which they were annexed. The arrangement having lasted for so long a time it would be very inconvenient to alter it, especially as regarded the registry of births, deaths, and marriages. An inquiry, however, had been made by one of the Inspectors attached to the Local Government Board to whom the ratepayers made a statement strongly in favour of retaining the present arrangement. The Local Government Board did not therefore contemplate any alteration of the existing state of things; but he would inquire further as to the necessity or otherwise of taking any action.

INTOXICATING LTQUORS BILL. [BILLS 83–139.]
Mr. Raikes, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
INTOXICATING LTQUORS BILL. [BILLS 83–139.]

  CONSIDERATIONS.
  Bill, as amended, further considered. Amendment, in page 1, line 24, words left out.
  Question again proposed,
  "That the words 'in a populous place, as defined by this Act' he inserted, instead of the omitted words 'parish which containing twenty-five thousand inhabitants or more.' "—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the hour of closing had now been fixed for 12.30 in the metropolis, and he understood the object of the words now proposed by the Government to be that the hour should be 11 in town districts, and 10 in these districts which might be properly called "country." The places to which the 11 o'clock hour would apply, were to be settled by the licensing justices. There was nothing to prevent them from determining that any place was sufficiently "populous" to deserve the application of the 11 o'clock hour. It could not, therefore, be denied that a discretion, however limited, was given to the justices. But
  78
  he had understood the Government and the majority of the House clearly to declare against giving discretion to the justices. If so—let them be consistent. They were in difficulty about definitions—why not do away with definitions altogether, and make the hour of closing in the metropolis 12.30, and 11 in the rest of the country. That arrangement would remove any discretion in the magistrates, but power could be given to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make certain local arrangements wherever he thought proper. What would be the practical result of such a plan? In the towns and large villages, and in every place where there was a public demand for it, the houses would be kept open until 11, and where there was no business to be done and no demand they would close earlier. In this Bill they had already dealt with the working men, and indeed with all the community, as if they were children, unable to take care of themselves, and now they were saying to the licensing justices—"We gave you a discretion in 1872, and such is the way you have used it, that we shall now take it away from you." If this was the real opinion of the House, let them be consistent, and draw the line as he proposed. As to the words "populous place," he believed the justices would be able to interpret them, though they would do so in different ways, and according to what they believed places required without much reference to population.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he believed the proposed hour in the Bill would cause considerable inconvenience in many parts of the country. Now, there was a great thorough fare between Leeds and Harrogate, and a large inn or public-house at a place called Hare-wood, which was clearly a house of call resorted to by great numbers of people going that way. If under the present regulation it was closed at 10 o'clock, the inconvenience to thousands would be very serious, and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would direct his attention to it.
  SIR WILLLAM HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman amended his proposed definition of a populous district, and removed some of the inconveniences that existed; but he did not define the method by which justices should ascertain and determine what a

  79
  "populous place" was. These magistrates would have to exercise a sort of judicial duty in deciding what were and what were not populous places within the meaning of the Act, and every village of considerable size would be making application to them to be placed on the 11 o'clock instead of the 10 o'clock list. Now, the House knew that there were in every village two parties; one of these would desire the later hour and the other the earlier. On the one side the right hon. Gentleman's friends, and on the other the clergyman the Dissenting minister, and the squire, would be bringing their influence to bear upon the magisterial bench, and whatever might be their decision, it was certain one or other of these parties would be dissatisfied; and thus they fell into the very difficulty of placing the magistrates in an invidious position, to escape from which was one object of the Bill. That was what would take place next September; but it would not stop there. It would occur every year; for they might rely upon it that a village which failed in its application one year, would be sure to make another application the following year, and in this way they would every autumn provide a large amount of litigation for the bench. It was not, however, only in reference to the villages themselves that this would occur. There was outside every village a margin between it and the open country, and the inhabitants of these outskirts would be constantly claiming to be included in a populous district. There was another inconvenience which was likely to arise. All these who were acquainted with the conduct of local self-government knew what a nuisance it was to have a variety of districts. They had already parishes and unions; police districts, sanitary districts, highway districts, and others; and they were now going to add to the confusion by creating a "liquor district," the boundaries of which would have to be reconsidered every year. There was this other inconvenience which would be sure to follow from the Amendment. The inhabitants of the scattered houses for a couple of miles round, who might wish to obtain intoxicating drinks, would throng into the populous places, and thus they would concentrate all the drunkenness of the surrounding country into these populous places, which could scarcely be said to
  80
  be advantageous to these places themselves. It, therefore, seemed to him to be an unsafe proposition. The House ought to see that it was throwing upon the magistrates more arduous duties than at present. The several parties in each district would be persistent in memorializing them. They would have to give their verdict, deciding between them, and they would always be sure of giving offence. These were, he thought, considerations worthy of the attention of the House and of Her Majesty's Government. The difficulties he had enumerated were inevitable, and they would have to throw upon Her Majesty's Government the responsibility of dealing with them.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had urged that it would obviate many difficulties if they closed every public-house outside of the metropolis at 11. That no doubt, would be a simple mode of cutting the Gordian Knot, and when he himself first took up that subject he had put that proposal in the Bill. But almost every Member on both sides of the House declared that it was a proposal which certainly could not be entertained, and it was only in deference to what he found to be the general feeling of the House that he was induced to withdraw what he individually still thought would be the proper way of solving that question, although he now knew it was impracticable. When he first made that proposal, he naturally expected to be backed up in it by the high authority of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who now spoke so strongly in its favour; but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman had reserved his advocacy of it until it was, he feared, too late. In defining a populous place it was his desire to secure the 11 o'clock hour to all these places which were practically, if not legally, towns; and he regretted the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had not, instead of occupying the time of the House with pointing out the difficulties in the way of the enactment, shown them some means of escaping from them. If he had taken that course the time of the House would have been more profitably employed. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the Government should accept

  81
  all the responsibility of the proposal, and he could assure him they were quite ready to do so, for it was his belief that the magistrates would not have the slightest difficulty in dealing with the matter.
  MR. ASSHETONagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford that considerable pressure would be brought to bear upon the magistrates; and therefore it was his intention at the proper time to move an Amendment making the County Licensing Committee, as created under the Act of 1872, the tribunal to decide what were and what were not populous places under the meaning of the Act.
  MR. PEASEdenied that the Amendment would place any more difficulties upon the magistrates than was the case at present. On the contrary, if it did anything, it limited these difficulties. This Bill had already taken away a good deal of the discretion of the magistrates, and he did not wish the Government to go further than it had done in that respect. He only hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his definition of populous places.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, there were two important points on which he had pledged himself to his constituency. One was as to the hours of closing, and the other was as to the uniformity of these hours. There had been a cry for a division just now; but he did not think that, though so many Members had spoken, he ought to be prevented from expressing his opinion and that of his constituents upon what was after all one of the essential points in question. He said most unhesitatingly that the Bill of the Home Secretary, when it was introduced, met a public demand by taking away the discretionary power entrusted to magistrates by the Act of 1872 in fixing the hours of opening and closing public-houses. The abuse of that power had led to general and to deep dissatisfaction all over the country; and everybody understood that one principal object of the Bill introduced by the Government was to take away the discretionary power which had been so unwisely used and to fix the hours by Parliament itself. It was impossible that he could vote for the clause now before the House when he found that this important point was surrendered, and the magistrates were, under
  82
  a different form of words, to be reinvested with the objectionable powers given to them under the existing Act. Suggestions had been invited as to the best mode of dealing with the difficulties in country districts. If he were to offer a suggestion, it would be that the matter might be left to the decision of the ratepayers in vestry assembled to decide the question of hours; but, at all events, with his pledges to his constituency and his own strong convictions upon the subject, he could be no party to the proposal now before the House. He sincerely regretted that the first principle on which the Bill was based by the Government had not been adhered to. The Bill, as it came from the hands of the Home Secretary, had been so much altered that it was impossible for him to support the Amendment now proposed.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, they had two points of importance to deal with which had been mixed up in debate. One was the question of late hours in towns, and the other whether there should be a discretionary power of fixing 10 o'clock as the hour for closing not only in towns with less than a certain number of inhabitants, but in districts which might be dealt with as "populous places." The first question had been debated very fully the other night, and it might be assumed that a general agreement had been come to upon it. "With respect to what constituted or should constitute a "populous place," he would suggest that the Amendment should at present be agreed to, and by the time they came to the Interpretation Clause, they might be able to agree upon, and to define strictly the meaning of the term "populous places" so as to narrow the discretionary power which many hon. Members thought so objectionable.
  MR. LEEMANearnestly hoped that the Home Secretary would not press the Amendment. It appeared to him to be utterly inconsistent with the principle of the Bill as he first introduced it to the House. Everybody understood that one of the main objects of the Bill was to take away the discretionary power entrusted to the magistrates by the Act of 1872—a power which, it was urged by the Government, had been so misused as to have called forth its condemnation in no measured terms. He voted with the Government on the introduction of the Bill, and had supported it hitherto upon

  83
  most of its main provisions; but he could not now stultify himself by voting for re-investing in the county justices the powers which had been vested in them by the Act of 1872, and which it was the avowed object of this Bill to take away. The Bill had already deprived the city and borough justices of all discretion. If they now gave the power to county magistrates to decide the hours in "populous places" they would, in effect, be handing over to them the control and regulation of two-thirds of the public-houses in the country. The results would be most unsatisfactory. Take, for instance, Yorkshire. The city he represented (York) had three benches of licensing magistrates immediately without its walls—the West Riding, the East Riding, and the North Riding. Each of these benches might come to a different decision as to the hours of closing. In one district it might be 11, another 10, and in a third 9 o'clock, and all these different hours enforced in places within two or three miles of each other. He could not conceive of anything more calculated to produce a sense of annoyance, discomfort, and discontent, especially when they considered that there were some thousands of licensing divisions over the Kingdom. One set of magistrates would decide one thing, and another set another. Some would be for keeping open till 11, some till 10, and there would be confusion complete. The Government had acted upon the principle that the magistrates should have no discretionary power as to hours; and he was quite sure they could not press and carry that Amendment without forfeiting the approval of the country which hitherto had been given to that measure, and without causing evils which they did not anticipate.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that as one of the unfortunate individuals who had to administer the law after it was passed, he could not form the least opinion as to what the Amendment meant. It said that a populous place should be defined as defined in the Act; but the Bill at present contained no definition of a populous place. That was one reason why the House ought again to go into Committee on the Bill. The only definition of a populous place which he could in any way make out was that it should be a place of 2,500 inhabitants. The
  84
  Bill said nothing whatever as to area, or boundary, or anything else that was to be taken into consideration. The magistrates would have to grope their way through the clause without assistance, and there would be no hope of uniformity of decision. It was the duty of the House to lay down plain definitions which magistrates could not mistake. It was not fair of the Governmen to press such an Amendment on the House, and he, for one, could not accept it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALcould not say that any such difficulty in understanding the meaning of the Amendment had occurred to his mind, though possibly there might be some difficulty in understanding what was the meaning of the term "populous place." The Amendment simply proposed to substitute in lieu of the word "parish" the term "populous place," and populous place was defined in the definition clause to mean any place which, by reason of the number or density of its inhabitants, the licensing justices might determine to be a populous place. There might be some difficulty in the definition; but the Government could hardly fix on a word to describe what was a populous place, and as some one must define it, the magistrates had been fixed upon by the Government as the parties most likely to know the wants of their districts, and so to make the definition which would give most satisfaction. There were precedents for the use of the phrase "populous place." It occurred in many Scotch Acts, and had not occasioned any difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had complained that there was nothing in the Act providing the means of ascertaining the population. That was quite true. The last Census would be useless for the purpose. But the number of the population must be ascertained in this case as it had been ascertained in other cases where such a term was used in other Bills.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTEUTHERsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had not thrown much light upon the point under discussion. The contention of these who objected to the Amendment was that it might mean anything, seeing it was not defined in the definition clause. In his Bill "populous places"

  85
  was defined, and it was said that no new licences should be granted in such places in which the number of licensed houses at any time exceeded one such house to 700 of the population. There would be less fear of the clause if the right hon. Gentleman would say what populous place meant.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Words inserted.
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved, in Clause 2, page 1, lines 26 and 27, to leave out "one o'clock in the afternoon" and insert "half an hour after noon." The hon. Gentleman said, that the Bill as it then stood, proposed to enact that licensed houses throughout the country should not open on Sunday until 1 o'clock in the afternoon. That hour was probably not objectionable if regarded only as the opening hour for the metropolitan district. But elsewhere the adoption of that hour would occasion great inconvenience. Out of the 890 licensing districts in England and Wales, only 42 had adopted, under the Act of 1872, the hour of 1 P.M. as the hour of the first opening on Sunday. In the remaining 848 districts, including Cambridge, which he had the honour to represent, the opening hour on Sunday was 12.30 at noon. He proposed that that hour should be preserved by the Bill, so that in towns, and generally in country places, the first hour of opening would be half-an-hour after noon. He was informed that in these places 1 o'clock was the almost universal hour for dinner on Sunday among the important and numerous class of persons for whose accommodation licensed houses existed. Religious services on Sunday morning in the chapels generally ended at noon, or shortly after noon; and in the churches the morning services were generally over by 12.30. The bakers who baked the dinners for many who were likely to require the use of licensed houses, cleared their bakehouses at 12.45. The dinner beer at present was fetched before 1 o'clock, and the dinner commenced at 1. He trusted that the Government and the House would adopt the Amendment. He did not propose to increase the hours of opening. These hours in towns and country places would, according to his Amendments, be from half-an-hour after
  86
  noon to 2.30 in the afternoon, instead of from 1 to 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words "one o'clock in the afternoon," and insert the words "half an hour after noon,"—(Mr. Alfred Marten,)—instead thereof.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment was merely a verbal one. The justices had the power to say what the exact time within certain limits should be, and the Amendment only altered the normal hour within which the houses could not be opened. Half-past 12 seemed to be the time that was most generally convenient.
  Question, "That the words 'one o'clock in the afternoon' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENmoved in Clause 2, page 2, line 4, to insert, "unless the licensing authority for any such town or parish shall declare that an extension of the hour of closing from 11 until 11.30 is desirable for the public convenience, in which case it shall be lawful for the said licensing authority to allow such extension." In so doing he referred to an observation of the Home Secretary, and said that if he had supposed he had required his advice and moral support, it should willingly have been given, but regarding him as the strong officer of a powerful Government and an united Party, he had not presumed to offer it. He saw no reason why the licensing justices should not be allowed to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, which was different from giving them that absolute discretion against which the House had declared. It had been said that in his constituency there was a great deal of drunkenness, and statistics had been quoted by the Home Secretary to the effect that the cases in the town of Deal were 1 in 186. He wished to quote a short statement made by the Mayor of Deal, which would show the fallacy of legislating upon statistics. There were 43 cases given out of a population of 8,000, that was 1 in 186; but 28 out of these cases were Marines, seamen and non-residents, so that the actual number of cases from the real population of Deal was 15, or 1 in 533. Moreover, in this number of 15 was the case of one man who had

  87
  been six times before the magistrates, so that if he were got rid of, the real number of the cases was only 9, or 1 in 888. Seafaring and hardworking men were fond of a drop of beer, but he begged to say that his constituents were as sober as any in the country.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 4, after the word "morning," to insert the words "unless the licensing authority for such town or parish shall declare to the Secretary of State that an extension of the hour of closing from eleven until half-past cloven is desirable for the public convenience, in which case it shall be lawful for the said Secretary of State to allow such extension, by writs under his hand."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. SCOURFIELDsupported the Amendment, and cited Dover as one of many towns where the arrival of late trains rendered it necessary that the public-houses should be open till 11.30 If the Homo Secretary granted the Amendment, he would confer a great advantage on the public.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry he could not possibly accept the Amendment. To do so would be to re-open all that the House had been deciding. With regard to passengers arriving at the termini of railways, if they were bonâ fide travellers they could obtain admission to the inns, and if not they could obtain what they wanted at the station refreshment-bar.
  MR. FRESHFIELDsupported the Amendment and said, he could not understand why the Home Secretary had given one hour more to London and one less to Dover. Dover needed the hour more than London, for London only needed it for pleasure, while Dover needed it for passengers who, of necessity, were travelling and in need of refreshment.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERobserved, that the persons referred to might be travellers, but if the houses were shut up they would not be able to obtain refreshment. He contended that a hard-and-fast line ought not to be fixed, and that if the Government adopted one they would make themselves as unpopular as the late Government, and many persons who had voted for them at the last Election would not support them when they next went to the country.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved to insert, in Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after "or," the words "the metropolitan police district or." In line 6, to leave out "parish," and insert "populous place."
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that after the decision the House had just come to, he could not allow his Amendment to be withdrawn without calling attention to the fact that now that they were about to close public-houses, except in populous places, it would be a great inconvenience, for it was not always in populous places that it was necessary that the hour should be later. It might happen that a public-house was near a railway station, or it might be it was used for various purposes for which it was most desirable that the hour should be later than 10 o'clock. It was no use pressing against the temper of the House such an Amendment as that of which he had given Notice; but there would be great practical inconvenience in a great many places unless there was some means by which the hour might be relaxed. He hoped his right hon. Friend would take this matter into his serious consideration, because it was not always in populous places where this extension of time was required. If he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was not mistaken, the Re-turns obtained by the Home Office contained no evidence whatever in favour of closing public-houses in country places at 10 o'clock. The choice was given by the late Government between the hours of 10, 11, and 12, and the great majority of places fixed upon 11. these who were legislating in that House must remember that they belonged to a class who did not frequent public-houses. It was not only the working classes, who were so constantly alluded to, but a great number of the middle classes who frequented these houses and used them in the same way that hon. Members used their clubs; and to close public-houses in the country arbitrarily at 10 o'clock would be inflicting an inconvenience of which they might expect to hear hereafter. He should therefore move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word "morning," to insert the words "unless the licensing authority for any such place shall declare to the Secretary of State that an extension of the hour of closing beyond the hour of ten is desirable for the public convenience, in which case it shall he lawful for the said Secretary of State to allow such extension for any time not later than eleven o'clock by writs under his hand."—(Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's observations were somewhat late, and if they had been made before they might have had some weight. They ought to have been made in 1872, when the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government. His memory seemed rather to have failed him for the moment. If he would loot back at the Bill introduced by the Government in the House of Lords, he would find that it was proposed in these days, doubtless after deliberate consideration, that the hour for closing should be 10 o'clock in the country. He (Mr. Cross) supposed the notion of the late Government as to the opinion and requirements of the people at that time varied considerably from what it was at the present moment. Their notion in these days was that in every town which had not a population of 10,000 inhabitants the public-houses should close at 10. All he (Mr. Cross) sought to do by the present Bill was to close public-houses at that hour in purely country villages. He thought it was rather late in the day for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and make this proposition at the present time.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that as he was not compromised by the action of the late Government, he might add his appeal to that of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and ask for a further consideration of this matter. There was a large class of respectable persons besides bonâ fide travellers, who would find it very inconvenient to have all the country public-houses closed at 10 o'clock, and he trusted the Government would consent to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ALFEED MARTENmoved, in Clause 2, line 14, after "three," to insert "or half-past two, according as
  90
  the hour of opening shall be one o'clock in the afternoon, or half an hour after noon."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved in line 14, to leave out "seven" and insert "six." There was, he said, considerable discussion the other night as to whether the opening hour on Sunday evening should be 7, 6, or 5; and he then promised that this matter should be considered not only by himself, but also by Her Majesty's Government. He subsequently gave Notice that he thought the wisest course would be to restore the old hour of 6, and that was what, after full consideration, he now proposed.
  MR. W. E. FOESTERsaid, he thought it could hardly be said that the right hon. Gentleman was now fulfilling his pledge in proposing this alteration. He clearly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other night that he had come to the conclusion that it was better to fix the hour at 7; and the pledge he gave after objections had been raised, and there was a possibility of a fresh Amendment being proposed, was that he would reconsider the subject. It seemed a rather curious thing that he should, after assenting to the word "seven," make a pledge that he would restore it to "six."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I pledged myself that the subject should be fully considered by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he very much regretted that reconsideration. If the Government first proposed G, and then, after being convinced from the debate in Committee that it should be 7, came back to 6, it was not very easy for the House to assent to such a proceeding.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that a certain proportion of the House seemed to have made up their minds not to listen to any discussion, but to vote according to foregone conclusions. It was very hard upon a man who did not belong to a club to say that between 3 and 6 on the afternoon of Sundays he should not be able to get any dinner. Instead of 6, it would be much better if the hour were 5. He did not know on what principle they proposed that the only places where a man could get his dinner on Sundays should be closed from 3 to 6 o'clock. It

  91
  could not be because they should not get their dinner during the hours of public worship, because places of public worship were open a variety of different hours. Indeed, the closing of public-houses in the afternoon would prevent a man from going to church in the evening, because he would not go there unless he had had his dinner, and that they prevented him from obtaining.
  COLONEL DYOTTobserved, that he believed the House was agreed upon the principle that it was desirable to close public-houses during the hours of Divine worship; but it was impossible to regulate the opening and closing of public-houses by these of the churches. He believed that the present hours, from 8 to 6, had given satisfaction, and that from 3 to 7 would not. He should vote for 6 o'clock.
  COLONEL BRISEsaid, he thought the publicans were entitled to consideration in these matters. 7 o'clock had been apparently accepted by the House as the hour for opening on Sunday evening, after 6 had been struck out, very much against its will.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEbelieved, on the whole, that it would be a great practical convenience in the neighbourhood of London if the hour of 6 were adopted. With regard to the hour of 5, he thought that the publicans themselves deserved some consideration, and he therefure trusted that hour would not be inserted in the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsubmitted that the Government had practically adopted his suggestion of 7 o'clock, and he was therefore relieved of responsibility in the matter. At the same time, he had no wish to oppose what now appeared to be the feeling of the House. He had never desired to go against the wishes of the metropolis in this matter, but had only wished that 7 should be the hour to be adopted in rural districts. The town of Liverpool was going to petition the House of Lords for 7 o'clock.
  LORD FRANCIS HERVEYsaid, he was the first to place upon the Paper the Amendment which the Government had adopted. He trusted the hour of 5 would not be inserted, as he believed it to be quite unnecessary. Notwithstanding the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he did not think the Home Secretary could be charged with
  92
  having done anything more than what he promised in a previous debate. He could not understand why the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), who had put down an Amendment on the Paper that the hour of opening on Sunday should be 6, should afterwards make a speech in favour of 5. He trusted 5 would not be adopted.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that so far as the hour of opening was concerned, he should support 5 o'clock. For a great number of years 5 was the hour, and it was only recently that it was altered to 6. Six o'clock was very inconvenient to many persons, but 7 was an abomination. The proposal had been introduced in a very extraordinary manner. It was an arrangement made evidently with reference to the hours of Divine worship; but if the public convenience in such matters was to be regulated by the clergy, the public would soon find themselves in a very awkward position. He submitted that the Home Secretary had no right whatever to send him to church on a Sunday evening, or to insist upon his giving up the pleasure of dining where he liked. He should support 5 o'clock.
  Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross) agreed to.
  MR. WELBYmoved to insert after "in," at page 2, line 35, "fishing and." Amendment agreed to.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to ask the Government, what they meant by "harvesting operations?" The term seemed to him much more vague and indefinite than the famous "populous places."
  MR. HUNTrose to Order. There was no Question before the House.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he should conclude with a Motion. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give any definition of the term "harvesting operations." Did it include hay harvest, bark harvest, and hop picking, or any of them, as well as corn harvest? It was well known that in all such operations men were employed early and late. In conclusion, he begged to move, pro formâ, the omission of the words "harvesting operations."
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, to leave out the words "harvesting operations."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the real fact was, that if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Act of 1872, he would find that precisely the same power was given as had been given in this case, and nothing more nor less. The magistrates had power under the Act of 1872 to make special exemptions. There was a notion in some parts of the country that the clause in the old Act did not apply to harvesting operations, and to remove that doubt the words were inserted.
  Question, "That the word 'harvesting' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  MR. WELBYmoved, in page 2, line 35, to insert after the word "harvesting," the words "or other agricultural." There were many agricultural operations which required the early attendance of men besides harvesting operations.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 35, after the word "harvesting," to insert the words "or other agricultural."—(Mr. Welby.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobjected to the proposal, as its adoption would practically include almost every other employment. He should be glad, however, to consult with his hon. Friend in order to ascertain whether there were particular occupations which ought to be exempted besides that of harvesting.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked whether "hopping" would be inserted?
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed an extension of hours in the agricultural districts during the four harvest months.
  MR. BEACHsaid, the effect of that would be to give the labourers an excuse for drinking at a later period of the evening.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINwished to know whether the power would include the case of seafaring people.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. ESTCOURTmoved, in page 2, line 37, to insert after "hour," the words "or closed at a later hour." His only object was that the publican might
  94
  obtain exemptions from the closing hour during the harvest season.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, after the word "hour," to insert the words "or closed at a later hour."—(Mr. Estcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment, which would have the effect of unduly extending the Act of 1872.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he thought the magistrates should be allowed discretion in extending the hours during the months of June, July, August, and September.
  MR. BEACHremarked that during harvest labourers had to get up very early in the morning, and nothing could be more injudicious than to give them an excuse for sitting up late.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 4 (Power to vary on Sunday afternoon hours of closing premises for sale of intoxicating liquors).
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the word "seven," and insert the word "six,"—(Mr. Assheton Cross,)—instead thereof.
  Question, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'six' be there inserted."
  COLONEL BRISEmoved to insert before the word "six" the words "five or." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would respect the numerous Petitions presented in favour of opening half-an-hour earlier in the morning. If the Home Secretary did not grant the been he asked, which would have no effect on the principle of the Bill, though it was matter of great importance in agricultural districts, he should certainly divide the House.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert before the word "six" the words "five or."—(Colonel Brise.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause was misunderstood by his hon. Friend. It was one to make the public-houses close at a time which would avoid their clashing with the afternoon service

  95
  at church. The hon. Member's Amendment, if moved at all, should have been moved on Clause 2, for the House had already decided at what hours houses were to be opened and closed on Sundays. He was bound to say that even if it were open to them, it would be a great pity now to alter the hours of opening to 5 o'clock. When the closing hour was 3 o'clock and the opening hour 5 o'clock, the people who were turned out at 3 o'clock remained in a group outside awaiting the opening of the door at 5 o'clock.
  MR. GREENEagreed with his hon. Friend that in many agricultural districts the proper hour for re-opening on Sundays would be 5 o'clock; but as the House had decided that the hour should be 6, he hoped there would be no division.
  Question, "That the words 'five or,' be inserted before the word 'six' in the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  The word "six" inserted.
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONmoved, in page 3, line 13, after "o'clock," to insert—
  "And for the purposes of such accommodation as aforesaid, the licensing justices may further vary the hours of opening and closing such premises on the evenings of the days above named: Provided always, That the hour of opening shall not he earlier than five o'clock, nor later than seven o'clock; but in all cases whore such premises are directed to he opened at five or six o'clock they shall he closed at nine instead of at ten o'clock."
  The hon. Baronet said, he thought four hours drinking on Sunday was sufficient for all reasonable wants of all reasonable men. Discretion was given the magistrates to vary the hours of opening on the mornings of Sundays, and why should the licensing justices be refused the same option on Sunday evenings? The Amendment could do no possible harm, and it might do a great deal of good. He should respectfully ask the House that this additional discretion should be left to the magistrates.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 13, after the words "o'clock," to insert the words "and for the purposes of such accommodation as aforesaid, the licensing justices may further vary the hours of opening and closing such premises on the evenings of the days above named: Provided always, That the hour of opening shall not be earlier than five
  96
  o'clock, nor later than seven o'clock; but in all cases where such premises are directed to he opened at five or six o'clock they shall be closed at nine instead of at ten o'clock."—(Sir George Jenkinson.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment. The question had been already decided on Clause 2. He entirely differed from his hon. Friend as to the advisability of re-opening at 5 o'clock on Sunday evenings.
  MR. MELLYsaid, that the hours of closing, no doubt, had been settled by Clause 2, but they had been unsettled in four or five instances subsequently. The licensing magistrates had been given complete discretion as to the hours of closing where agricultural, fishing, harvesting, and mining purposes were concerned. For these exceptional cases the hours were to be altered. Why, then, refuse the rural population the privilege, if the magistrate so decided, of having the public-houses in their district re-opened at 5 o'clock for their convenience at tea and supper time?
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House on his Amendment. In the eastern counties the evening service was between 6 and 7 o'clock, and very shortly after people retired to rest. He knew that not only the clergy of the Church of England, but all the Dissenting ministers, were in favour of the change.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEbelieved the Amendment to be a good one, and on the ground of public convenience he should give it his cordial support.
  MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, that as the Amendment stood, it would compel all the public-houses in the country to be closed at 9 on Sunday evening. Believing that the Bill had already gone far enough in the direction of restriction, he would vote against the Amendment.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Amendment as it stood would undoubtedly have the effect stated by the hon. Member for Eye, and he would, therefore, propose to omit the words "or six." Its effect would then be that all houses opening at 5 should close at 9, and all houses opening at 6, at 10.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 6, to leave out the words "or six."—(Mr. Childers.)
  SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he was quite willing to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he believed the Amendment did not apply to the metropolitan district, and he believed that in many parts of the country these who opened their houses at S o'clock in the morning were very happy to close them at 9 o'clock at night.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, because it was entirely at variance with the clauses of the Bill already, after long discussion, agreed to by the House.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTreminded his right hon. Friend that the House had already decided that the hours should be from 6 to 10, and he hoped he would abide by that decision.
  MR. GREENEsaid, that in the Eastern counties, if the magistrates decided that houses might open at 5 o'clock in the morning, they would willingly close at 9 o'clock. In his own immediate neighbourhood people went to bed generally at 9 o'clock, and he himself retired to rest, when at home, at 10. He thought the Amendment an improvement to the Bill.
  Question, "That the words 'or six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question put,
  "That the words 'and for the purposes of such accommodation as aforesaid, the licensing justices may further vary the hours of opening and closing such promises on the evenings of the days above named: Provided always, That the hour of opening shall not he earlier than five o'clock, nor later than seven o'clock; but in all cases where such premises are directed to he opened at five o'clock they shall he closed at nine instead of at ten o'clock,' he there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 241: Majority 118.
  Clause 5 (Early-closing licences.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, in page 3, lines 25 and 26, to leave out, "or opening them at a later hour in the morning than usual," the effect of which would be that any publican might, on application, obtain the privilege of opening an hour earlier in the morning on condition of closing an hour earlier in the evening.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should state some reason for his Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Penalty for infringing Act as to hours of closing.)
  MR. CAWLEYmoved, in page 4, line 19, after "allows," to insert "any person to remain in such premises for the purpose of consuming." Line 20, leave out "although." Same line, leave out, "hours," and insert "hour." Same line, leave out, "to be consumed in such premises," and insert, "for more than ten minutes after such hour of closing." The hon. Gentleman said, if a person ordered a glass of brandy and water hot a minute before the fixed hour, it would be very hard to force him to drink it at once, and yet, if he did not do so, the landlord would be liable to penalties for an act which he could not, in common reason or courtesy, prevent. He could not take his customer by the throat and turn him into the street half a minute after the clock struck the fixed hour. He was not individually wedded to ten minutes, and if his right hon. Friend would give any reasonable time for consumption of liquors ordered just before the hour of closing, he would be content.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, after the word "allows," to insert the words "any person to remain in such premises for the purpose of consuming,"—(Mr. Cawley,)—instead thereof.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, otherwise publicans would suffer a great hardship. They could not refuse to sell until the very hour of closing, and yet, if a customer remained one minute afterwards to drink the liquor he had bought, a penalty of £10 or £20 would be incurred. It was unjust to draw such a hard-and-fast line, and he felt sure that such a monstrous provision could not be enforced.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYwas of opinion that there ought to be some reasonable space allowed between the time of refreshments being ordered and that for their consumption.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the House had already decided not to entertain a proposition of this kind sub-

  99
  mitted by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). By the Act of 1872, no man could compel a licensed victualler to do anything which would endanger his licence, and a publican would be justified in refusing to supply a quantity of hot brandy a minute before the closing hour, because, as it could not be consumed within the time, the licence would be in danger. A relaxation of the rule would prove a trap to the licensed victualler, for, as had been pointed out the other night, it would be impossible to stop the drinking at the end of 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. It was for the interest of the publicans, therefore, that the clause should not be altered.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the Home Secretary had recognized the principle when he extended the hours of closing in exempted houses from 12.15 to 12.30.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that was only in the metropolis, and under exceptional circumstances.
  MR. HALLsaid, he did not understand this drawing of a hard-and-fast line in these matters. When the Government brought in this Bill, he believed that the people of this country, as a whole, were tolerably well satisfied with it; but in the course of the discussions that had taken place upon it, and the changes which had been made in it, the result had been to produce a general feeling of disappointment and dissatisfaction. The metropolis had powerful Representatives in that House, and to them much had been conceded; but he felt, as many others did, that even-handed justice had not been dealt out to the provinces in this respect, and that they would be left in as bad, if not a worse, position than they were at present. For his own part, he must say that if the Bill passed in its present shape, he did not look forward with much pleasure or satisfaction to his next meeting with his much-respected constituents. The Bill, instead of relaxing existing restrictions, had imposed fresh ones. It seemed to be the general opinion that some time should be allowed for clearing the premises. It was no doubt very important to consult the convenience of the police; but for that House to pass an Act which would work without constant friction, was much more important and far more consonant with the dignity of Parliament. If the hon.
  100
  Member went to a division he should support him with all his heart.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he hoped a concession of this kind would on no account be made a matter of discretion on the part of the justices. There would be cases which would never be met unless something of this kind were done. He spoke on behalf of a very large constituency, and it had been represented to him that it would be utterly impossible to carry out the Act if the publicans were allowed to supply their customers up to the very last moment of closing and to have their house clear at the same time. It was all very well to say that unless this were done it would endanger the licence; but whether it was so or not, was it not better to have this matter settled definitely by Act of Parliament than to leave it to be decided by the magistrates? If the House agreed to give 10 minutes' or a quarter of an hour's grace, he thought it would be regarded as satisfactory.
  Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 152: Majority 91.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLmoved, in page 4, line 21, after "premises" to insert "in contravention of this Act."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Saving as to bonâ fide travellers and lodgers).
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGmoved the omission of the latter part of the clause, which provided that no person should be regarded as a bonâ fide traveller who had not come from a distance of not less than three miles, as measured in a straight line on the Ordnance map. He objected to distance being made an element in the consideration of the question, and pointed out that it would give rise to curious anomalies, as in the case of a person who, having walked a distance of some eight miles from his own house, and going into a public-house on his return when within a mile or so of his home, would be refused refreshment on the ground of his not being a bonâ fide traveller. He trusted, at any rate, that such a provision would not be introduced in dealing with Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, to leave out from the words "a person," to the word "map," in line 10,—(Mr. Downing.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsupported the Amendment. He had received a letter from a most respectable publican complaining of the definition. If the definition were insisted on the consequence would be that the publican would not supply the public, lest he should get into a mess, and the public would consequently be subjected to much hardship. He had further to complain of the provision that the three miles were to be measured in a straight line. They ought to be measured by the nearest road. Altogether the definition seemed to him an injustice inflicted on sober people for the sake of drunkards.
  MR. W. S. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the House would preserve the clause as it was. It would really protect the publican. He believed the definition would put a stop to illicit drinking by miners in the Midlands, who meanwhile walked out to neighbouring villages, got drunk, and created much disturbance.
  MR. BRISTOWEalso opposed the Amendment, believing that the proviso in question, while it did not accomplish all he could desire, went as far as the Home Secretary felt that he could go towards meeting an acknowledged difficulty.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the words which it was proposed to omit had been inserted in the clause with the view to enable the publican to refuse to serve persons who lived in his neighbourhood with refreshments on the plea that they were bonâ fide travellers. If the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall) thought that his plan of measuring the distance was better than that set forth in the Act, he should be happy to accept his Amendment.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he quite agreed with the object of the right hon. Gentleman, but he doubted whether the trade would be protected by the clause as it stood. A man might lodge on the previous night within three miles of the place where he asked to be served with drink, and yet be a very bonâ fide traveller indeed. If the words were construed literally and strictly they would result in hardship. He believed that in Scotland there was no definition of bonâ fide traveller, and that the best state of the law for England was that which existed before the year of 1872, when it rested with the prosecution to show
  102
  whether a man was a bonâ fide traveller or not.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the difficulty as to who was and who was not a bonâ fide traveller had existed ever since the days of the children of Israel, who were grossly imposed upon by the Gibeonites in that particular. He thought, upon the whole, that the definition proposed by the Home Secretary was an improvement and would support it. He also quite approved of the Amendment about to be moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall)—that the distance should be measured on the nearest road instead of in a straight line on the Ordnance map.
  Question,
  "That the words 'a person for the purposes of this Act and the principal Act shall not be deemed to he a bonâ fide traveller unless the place where he lodged during the preceding-night is at least three miles distant from the place where he demands to he supplied with liquor, such distance to he calculated in a straight line on the ordnance map,' stand part of the Bill,"
  put, and agreed to.
  MR. ALFRED MARTENmoved to insert after "lodged" the words "or slept."
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 8, after the word "lodged," to insert the words "or slept."—(Mr. Alfred Marten).
  MR. DODSONasked if the Home Secretary intended to accept this Amendment? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS said, he did not.] Because, if so, supposing it were to be found that a man, from fleas or other causes, did not sleep, how would that affect the publican?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that in such a case the man would be taken to have "lodged."
  Question, "That these words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. HALLmoved, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "in a straight line on the Ordnance map," and insert "by the nearest public thoroughfare."
  MR. WADDYsaid, he thought it would be preferable that the clause should remain as it was originally proposed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas anxious to make the Bill as easily workable as

  103
  possible, and assented to the words proposed to be introduced.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Record of convictions on licences).
  MR. M. P. SCOTT (for Mr. GREGORY)moved, in page 6, line 4, to leave out the word "or," and insert "which by such Act was to have been endorsed upon the licence, or of any offence against this." The object of the Amendment was to limit the power of the magistrate, in respect of making endorsements upon the licences of publicans.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was happy to be able to accede to the introduction of these words, which were simply meant to correct an error in the drawing of the Bill. Under the Act of 1872 there were certain offences which might be recorded on the licence, and it was never intended to impose severer penalties upon publicans by this Bill than existed under the Act of 1872.
  In reply to Sir EDWARD WATKIN,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the object of the Government was to leave the law as regarded the powers of the constable to enter public-houses in the way it was before the passing of the Act of 1872.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Constable to enter on premises for enforcement of Act.)
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would move pro formâ to omit every word from the words "any constable" down to the words "in force," in line 37. He merely made this proposal for the purpose of enabling him to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to this—that, under the law as it stood before the Act of 1872, the constable had the power to enter any licensed premises without a search warrant; and though there had, he believed, been some doubt on the subject, the general opinion was that under that law the constable could enter every room in the house. In the Act of 1872, words were expressly inserted giving the constable power not only to enter a licensed house, but to go through every room in that house. The Home Secretary, however, by his Bill got rid of the clause which contained these words, and he gave them a clause in substitution of it which left the law substantially on the same footing as it
  104
  existed before the Act of 1872. The effect, therefore, of the alteration which had been made in the Bill by means of the words just agreed to would be to leave the law on this point in a state of doubt. He hoped the Government had well considered their intention.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 33, to leave out from the word "any," to the word "force," in line 37.—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he believed that under the old Beer House Act the constable had the power to enter all houses licensed for the sale of beer, whether beer-houses or public-houses. This was the state of the law until the passing of the Act of 1872. Under that Act the constable might enter at all times and examine every room in a licensed house and search for all intoxicating liquors stored therein. He believed that these words were put into the Act to enable a constable to search for adulterated liquor. Now they had struck out the adulteration clauses in the Bill, and therefore they had done away with the object which they had in view in giving power to the constable to go into the several apartments of a licensed house. The present Bill restored to the police the simple power to enter upon the premises to prevent any violation of the Act, and thus threw upon the police the responsibility. The policeman would have the right to enter in the positive execution of his duty, and it might be necessary for him to do so in case of a riot, but he would be responsible if he exceeded his duty. He was quite aware of the great difficulty of washing out the colour put on the old law by the Act of 1872, and he should be glad to consider any Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman might have to offer; only reminding him, however, that the matter had been very carefully considered by some able lawyers, and the clause drawn accordingly.
  SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the complaint of the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), or explained why the 35th section of the Act of 1872 should be interfered with. To that there had been no answer. The Act of 1872

  105
  gave the constable protection for all he did in searching, by declaring that he had a right to enter premises and search any rooms. The proposal was to repeal that section, and the right hon. Gentleman had given no reason whatever for that course. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the constable was to have the power of entering the private rooms of a public-house?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: He would have power to enter them in the execution of his duty, and for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; but the Bill would throw on him the responsibility of showing that he entered them with this view.
  SIR HENRY JAMESobserved, that if that was the intention, it appeared to him that the responsibility should be placed on the Legislature or the Government, not on the constable. They were seeking to repeal an enactment which gave the constable the power, and which was passed by a Government which said that the constable should have it. The licensed victuallers objected to the constable having the power, and the Government meant that he should have it, but they did not say so. They wished him to have it, in order that, if there was an offence committed under the principal Act, he might enter private rooms; but they yet wanted to repeal the section which gave the power. Why did they discontinue the provision which gave the power, when they were anxious that it should be retained? Why should they strike out that section, and then throw the responsibility for what might happen, not upon the Legislature, nor upon the Government either of the original or of the amending Act, but upon the constable? Did they think that worthy legislation? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) signified his assent; but what benefit was obtained by this course? They repealed the Act of 1872, which said that the constable had a right to search private rooms, and now said that the constable was to have the right of entry, and afterwards of defending himself by an undefined law. It was paying a debt in base coin. ["Oh, oh!"] He repeated it, and took the responsibility of what he said. If the Government meant that the constable was to enter upon the premises in accordance
  106
  with the definition of the law of 1872, why repeal that law? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS observed, that he had said the law would remain the same as it was before the passing of the Act of 1872.] The Act of 1872 did not alter the previous law, but only declared what it was. Were they giving the licensed victuallers any advantage by this? ["Yes."] Did they intend that the policeman should be able to enter premises as he had the power to do before the Act of 1872 was passed? If they meant to give the same power, why repeal the Act of 1872? If they meant to give less, why did they not say so, and why did they throw the responsibility on the constable? He hoped that before the section was repealed there would be some answer given to the right hon. Member for Chester, why there was an attempt to repeal the section, and yet to keep the law as it was?
  MR. FORSYTHsaid, he was very much surprised that this discussion should have been raised. They were told that the 35th clause of the Act was the same as the 13th section of the Bill, and that the Bill was precisely the same as the law was before the Act of 1872. That was not the case. By the 35th section of the Act of 1872 a constable could go over every part of a publican's house, whether there was any violation of the Act or not. He could search every room, every cupboard in it, and he could say he would go to-morrow, or the day after, and take an account of the liquors stored therein, though there might not be more than five barrels of beer in the whole house. The police might enter and rummage a whole house, regardless of the comfort of its inmates, or the interest of the public. That was a power which was naturally most offensive to publicans; but the power in the 13th clause was of a very different character. The power was there given for a specific purpose, "for the purpose of preventing or detecting the violation of any provisions of the Act," and that was a power which no publican would object to. The difference was so plain, that he wondered why his hon. and learned Friend should not see it.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, he thought the explanations of the Homo Secretary very unsatisfactory. Everybody knew the complaint which the licensed victuallers urged against the Act

  107
  of 1872, and it was a most just one. They complained that their houses, which ought to be their castles, were dealt with by that law after a fashion that was not used in dealing with these of any other class of the community. He knew a case in which a constable insisted on searching a licensed victualler's bedroom in which his wife was confined, and the visit was made vexatiously. How could they prevent such a power being tyrannically used by a class of men employed at 18 s. a-week? If he were in Order, he should presently move to add, after the word premises, "other than the private apartments of the licensed person or persons."
  MR. WATNEYsaid, that the present Bill would repeal the most offensive clause of 1872, and would restore the old law, which had worked well.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREbelieved that under this Bill constables would still have power to enter private rooms; and what the Government ought to do was to make the law clear, so that victuallers might not be induced to believe that they had received a great benefit when really none was conferred.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was no doubt as to what the law was before 1872. By the 4 and 5 Will. IV. c. 72, the police had the power of entering all the rooms of a public-house or beerhouse, and the object of that power was for the enforcing of the Acts relating to the licensing law with regard to the conduct of that public-house. The policeman who exercised that power did so on his own responsibility. But the Act of 1872 imported into the law the question of adulteration. Before that Act, the question of adulteration was under the inspection of the Excise officer, who could enter any room in a public-house. The Act of 1872 gave that power to the policeman not merely for the purpose of maintaining order, but also to inquire into the matter of adulteration. This left the publican so entirely at the mercy of the constable, and occasioned so much inconvenience to the publican, that a change was considered desirable, and that the constable should only make such entry in the necessary discharge of his duty. If it were found that he was acting in an objectionable and vexatious manner, no magistrate would exonerate him. If the power of search was limited
  108
  to the public rooms in a licensed victuallers' premises, it would open the door to any amount of illegal drinking in private rooms. He thought the licensed victuallers were quite satisfied with the change that had been made in this respect.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, there was something involved in this beyond the question of illicit drinking. Did the Government intend by this clause that a police-constable might at any time by night or by clay enter a room—even the bedroom of a licensed victualler? That was the question, and he would divide the Committee on a question which violated the principles of the British Constitution. He would now move that the words which he had stated be inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 37, after the word "force," to insert the words "other than the private apartments of the licensed person or persons."—(Sir Edward Watkin.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. GREGORYsaw no violation of the British Constitution in the clause as it stood. Nothing could be clearer than that, if the constable entered the premises without reasonable grounds, he was responsible for his conduct; otherwise, he was exonerated.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that all that was required was to to insert such words as to make the law perfectly clear on the subject. It was all very well now to sneer at speeches about the "violation of the British Constitution," but a very different tone was taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the end of January last, when plenty of such speeches were heard. What was the case? The law had been vague before the Act of 1872, and they had been told that Lord Aberdare had been advised that the constables had the right of entry even into the private premises of the licensed victualler. Lord Aberdare thought that right ought to exist, and stated it clearly in his Bill. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) could not but say that he thought Lord Aberdare was wrong; but, at all events, he had the courage of his opinions. Let the present Government do the same. If they thought the right should exist, let

  109
  them say so in their Bill—if not, let them plainly enact the reverse, but in either case, they should not leave the law vague and uncertain.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdenied emphatically that there had been any desire whatever to interfere with the liberty of the subject in proposing the clause now sought to be modified. It would be impossible to carry out the Amendment without considerably enlarging the privileges already conceded to the publicans. Great pains had been taken to make "white" appear "black." All that the Government desired to do was to leave it to the constable in such a way as not to interfere with the liberty of the subject. They wished to restore the law precisely to the state in which it was before the Act of 1872. Before that Act was passed the Excise had power to search in any part of the premises for adulterated liquor. The Act of 1872 gave the constables certain powers of the same kind, and these powers were used in some instances oppressively. But under the law as it existed before 1872 there was no oppression, nor were there any complaints on the part of the licensed victuallers, and what the Government wished now was, as he had said, simply to restore the law to the state in which it was before 1872. If a constable should hereafter violate the privacy of a publican he would suffer for it, and the publican would not.
  SIR HENRY JAMEScomplained that the House could obtain no direct declaration or clear statement from the Government as to the right of police-constables to enter any portion of the premises of a publican. The Amendment of his hon. Friend (Sir Edward Watkin) put this to the test, and if hon. Members voted against it, they would recognize that the police had a right to enter the premises of a licensed victualler. The Government declined to put into this Bill what they meant, and were equally resolved not to say it by word of mouth; so that the House had better vote for the Amendment and make the matter clear.
  MR. R. H. PAGETcontended that the alteration of the Act of 1872 would be simply reverting to what the law was previously, and that the Government in that were really meeting the wishes of the country.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped hon. Members would vote on the merits of the Amendment, and not be led away by any talk about ad captandum statements made by vagrant Members opposite during the elections. Both the Home Secretary and the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had clearly explained what their object was. It was too late in the day to say that publicans must be treated like any other British subjects. They had a monopoly, and it was necessary that it should be regulated. He hoped hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side would not, in order to catch a little party triumph, get into a disadvantageous position by going into the Lobby against the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. EARPsaid, it was distinctly laid down by the Act of 1872 that the police should have the power of entering all licensed premises to ascertain if any persons were drinking at hours prohibited by law. The present clause only did the same, and he should therefore support it.
  SIR EDWABD WATKINdenied that he was actuated by any personal motive in moving the Amendment. He had called attention to the subject on the second reading, and had understood the Home Secretary to propose to remedy the grievance. He only moved now because the right hon. Gentleman had offered nothing. He did so simply as an act of justice, and reminded hon. Gentlemen that it was unparliamentary to impute motives to any hon. Member.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 204: Majority 141.
  Clause 23 (Notices of adjourned Brewster Sessions and of intention to oppose).
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, in page 10, line 3, at beginning of clause, to insert as a paragraph—
  "Whereas by section forty-two of the principal Act it is enacted that a licensed person applying for the renewal of his licence need not attend in person at the general annual licensing meeting unless he is required by the licensing justices so to attend: Be it Enacted, That such requisition shall not be made save for some special cause personal to the licensed person to whom such requisition is sent."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. BRISTOWEmoved, in page 10, line 10, after "opposed," insert—

  111
  "And if the grounds of such objection shall, in the opinion of the justices present at such meeting, he frivolous or vexatious, such justices may direct such costs as they in their discretion shall think fit to be paid by such objector to the holder of any such licence so sought to be renewed as aforesaid."
  The hon. Gentleman said, he felt that this was an Amendment which he should have moved in Committee, and which he had intended to do, but had been prevented at the last moment. It was a great grievance that men should be put to the annoyance, the trouble, and expense, of getting up a defence against an undefined charge, and then find that when the matter got into Court, the objectors did not think fit to go on with it. In the Registration Courts the Revising Barrister had the power of calling upon a frivolous and vexatious objector to pay the costs, and the same rule ought to prevail here.
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would receive the Amendment, in which he entirely coincided, or if it were out of time, that he would assure the House that the provision would be made part of the Bill in "another place."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSacquiesced in the spirit of the Amendment, which, however, was one-sided, inasmuch as it referred only to renewals, and not to either grants or transfers. If it were withdrawn now, he should take care that the attention of these who might have charge of the Bill in "another place" should be called to its importance.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 (Transfer or renewal of licences forfeited without distrualification).
  MR. GREGORYmoved to leave out the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 27 (Definitions).
  MR. BARINGmoved that the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex, should be considered as lying within the metropolitan area. It was a rule of fair play that similar persons residing in similar localities carrying on similar trades should be treated in a similar manner.
  112
  The name "parish of West Ham" would imply that it was a pleasant rural place; but it was nothing of the kind. It was only three miles from the City, and was connected with it by a continuous row of houses, which reached from Whitechapel to Stratford, where there was a population of 85,000 persons, which was the same in character and occupation as that of Bow and Mile End. The traffic between it and London began early in the morning; the workmen's trains left as early as 6 o'clock, and unless the workmen could obtain refreshments at the public-houses they would not be able to take with them what they wanted for the clay. As the Bill stood, his constituents would lose two hours and a-half in the course of the day. He thought the case for inclusion within the metropolitan district was a perfectly clear one. The only reason for shutting out West Ham was that it was separated by the small river Lea, and was in Essex; whereas, on the north of the Thames, North Woolwich—though on the other side of West Ham, from the fact of its accidentally being part of Kent—was included in the metropolitan district, and had the advantage of two hours and a-half more of open houses, one in the morning, and one hour and a-half at night. He could not undertake to say what were the views of the absolute majority of the inhabitants, as it was hard to canvass 85,000 persons; but he had presented nearly all the Petitions sent to the House on the subject, alike from these who opposed the extension of the hours and from these who were in favour of being included in the metropolitan district, and, judging from them, he believed he was justified in saying that a large majority of the inhabitants of the district were in favour of inclusion. But even were this not the case, he would remind the House that yesterday by a large majority they had decided that even a majority of two-thirds had not the right to deprive a minority of one-third of the inhabitants of any town or parish of their accustomed comforts and liberties. He hoped he had shown some reasons for the adoption of this Amendment, which he had placed on the Paper at a late period of the debate, and that if the Home Secretary did not assent to it at that stage it would receive clue consideration in "another place."
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 2, after the word "hereto," to insert the words "and shall include, for the purposes of this Act, the parish of West Ham, in the county of Essex."—(Mr. Baring.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  COLONEL MAKINS, in supporting the Amendment moved by his hon. Colleague, said the district affected by it was a very large one. It contained many town-halls, many churches, many large railway works and manufactories. It was, in fact, only a portion of the metropolis within the radius of five miles of Charing Cross, and it was as much a part of London as Bow, Stratford, or even Southwark, and, instead of being one hour worse than their neighbours as the inhabitants were before, they would be 2½ hours worse under the Bill—an hour in the morning, and one hour and a-half in the evening. He therefore hoped the Home Secretary would concede what appeared to be a simple act of justice to a portion of the metropolitan population, who were, by a mere geographical accident, shut out from the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was perfectly true that the population of West Ham was part of the population of London, and at first he thought the district ought to be included within the Metropolitan area. He openly said so in the House, and he quite expected he should have an expression of opinion from the inhabitants to that effect. But to his surprise almost the first deputation which he received on his return to town after the Whitsuntide holidays was one from West Ham, begging and imploring him not to do what he had intended. That deputation consisted of magistrates, clergymen, and others. It was not composed of persons who objected to the sale of liquors, not teetotalers, but apparently a deputation of influential and highly respectable persons. [Laughter.] What he meant was that it was a lonâ fide representation of the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of West Ham, so far as he could judge. On the other hand, he had never received any representation from the people of West Ham asking to be included. He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment, for if the people of West Ham wanted
  114
  to be included and were excluded it was their own fault.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved in page 11, line 4, after "one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two," to insert—
  "And containing two thousand five hundred inhabitants or more; and any collection or continuous line of houses immediately adjoining a town as so defined shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises, be deemed to be part of such town after it has been declared so to be by an order of the licensing justices having jurisdiction in the place where such houses are situated."
  The right hon. Gentleman said, in the clause under consideration, a town was defined to mean an urban sanitary district, as described for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1872. The purport of that definition was that it should include all boroughs, not Parliamentary but municipal boroughs, all places under Improvement Acts, and all places which had Local Boards, where there was an authority ruling in the district, and whose boundaries were defined. But, on looking into books containing information on the subject he found there were many places with Local Boards or governing authorities which had not a population of 2,500 inhabitants. As far as boroughs were concerned, it would make very little difference, whether the words "two thousand five hundred," as originally intended, were retained or not, because there were: only two or three which had a smaller population. But now that the House had come finally to the conclusion to divide the whole country into towns and purely rural districts, the definition he had at first contemplated was no longer necessary. In fact, it was quite clear that very nearly all the places in the list in his hand would be decided by the magistrates to be "populous places." His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot) had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the words "two thousand five hundred inhabitants or more," and that Amendment he was willing to accept. That disposed of the urban population. With respect to the less populous places, the question remained, who were to be the Boundary Commissioners, so to speak, who should fix the boundaries? A great deal had been said about the proposal of the Government being one

  115
  for restoring the option of the magistrates. It was, however, nothing of the kind. The House might leave the matter to be decided by the High Sheriff, or the Lord Lieutenant, or the chief police, authority, or the County Judge. Some one must define it, and in the Bill it was left to the licensing justices. This was rather a mistake, and he saw there was an Amendment on the Paper with regard to this which entirely met his view. It should not be the Licensing Justices, but the General Licensing Committee. They would act more uniformly throughout the whole of a county, and he thought that that would meet the approval of the House.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 11, line 4, after the words "one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two," to insert the words "and any collection or continuous line of houses immediately adjoining a town as so defined shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises, be deemed to he part of such town."—(Mr. Assketon Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he was glad that the Home Secretary had accepted his first Amendment, as the "2,500 inhabitants" would have been a useless encumbrance to his Bill. He would now move to leave out from the Home Secretary's Amendment the words "or continuous line," and he did so because they all knew perfectly well that although there might be a large collection of houses "immediately" outside of a town, there were many instances in which these houses were not in "a continuous line." He knew of several instances where there was a meadow or field intervening, and yet these houses were, as it were, a part and parcel of the town. This matter should be clearly settled, so that the justices might have no difficulty in deciding the question.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the words "or continuous line."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
  VISCOUNT GALWAYcalled attention to the case he mentioned the other evening, of houses on the opposite side of a river to a town, and asked whether they would be considered as belonging to and included in the town.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not see what advantage there could be in retaining the words "continuous line," especially as they were connected with "collection" by "or." If they had been connected with it by "and" it would be altogether different. He thought it of great importance to keep the word "immediately."
  MR. STANSFELDasked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the fact that a vast number of urban sanitary districts had less than 2,500 inhabitants.
  SIR JOHN KARSLAKEsaid, that if the word "immediately" were struck out they would be exercising more discretion. A line of houses might be practically contiguous, yet it might be broken by a bridge, a road, or a small field.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had the Return of the Local Government Boards in his hand, and it was quite true that a few of the parishes contained comparatively small populations. He thought, however, there were only about a dozen with very small populations. But it was much more convenient to take a broad and general fine in this matter. He was, therefore, inclined to recommend the House to omit the words "or continous line."
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Secretary of State where he obtained his information as to these small populations being only about a dozen? He held in his hand a Return of all the urban sanitary districts with less than 2,500 inhabitants, and there were about 200 of them.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not mean to say there were only a dozen places with less than 2,500 inhabitants, because there was, no doubt, a large number of them, but that there was that number with very small populations.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that in his own county, for instance, there was a long list of urban sanitary districts with only 400, 500, 600, or 700 inhabitants, and what he wished to point out was that if they gave these places the opportunity of closing at 11, it would be impossible to refuse it to hundreds of other parishes and villages.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTmoved, in line 3, to leave out the word "immediately," because a number of houses might, as had been said, be on the opposite side of a river; and it would be hard that they should be obliged to close at a different hour from the houses in the town.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out the word "immediately."—(Colonel Barttelot.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid he thought the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Sir John Karslake) was perfectly conclusive. It often happened that a place was separated from a town by a a road, or a river, or a ditch, and yet was practically part of it. The case mentioned by his hon. Friend behind was, he thought, a strong one. Persons came to the town from a distance, but a heavy toll made them put up at some outlying place. For all practical purposes, however, and in common parlance, these places were parts of the town.
  Question, "That the word 'immediately' stand part of the said proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved, as an Amendment, the addition of words by which places situated in the vicinity of towns, and practically part of them, should be deemed to be part of them for the purposes of the Act as regarded hours of closing.
  Question,
  "That the words 'and any collection of houses adjoining a town as so defined shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises, be deemed to he part of such town,' he there inserted."
  MR. PEASEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was in contravention of a great and desirable principle of the Bill, that a broad distinction should be drawn between town and country places, and that in the former the hour of closing should be 11, and in the latter 10. When he took away the limit of 2,500, however, he would be doing an admitted evil, by giving to beer-shops in small places a power they never before enjoyed.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, that now for the first time the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to drop the
  118
  limit of 2,500, and the consequence would be that many places would be admitted as towns which had less than 2,500 inhabitants, and in many places not ranking as towns, beer-houses would be entitled to keep open till 11 which at present closed at 10. This should not be done without more consideration than had been given to it. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to give the magistrates a discretionary power to say what were towns. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen were mistaken in saying that that was not the effect of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman should either keep to his limit of 2,500, or else give a clearer definition of what he meant by a town. The effect would be that beer-houses in places of less than 2,500 inhabitants, which hitherto had closed at 10, would keep open until 11.
  MR. BRISTOWEobserved, that it was plain that the effect of the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be such as it had been described. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman meant the justices to decide what were "populous places."
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, he quite concurred in the opinion expressed by the two previous speakers.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREwished to say, he did not think the House quite understood the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. It had, in his opinion, just been correctly described by his hon. Friends behind him; but to put the point clearly, he begged to move an addition to the proposed Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by adding, at the end thereof, the words—
  "Provided always, That no urban sanitary district, whether including such adjoining houses or not, shall be deemed a town unless it contains two thousand five hundred inhabitants."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there added to the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the House must be tired of discussing the matter; but the reason for discussing it so closely was that the right hon. Gentleman found that after laying his Amendment on the Table of the House it was necessary to alter it. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed

  119
  to omit his definition with regard to a population of 2,500; and the result was, that it would be very difficult to carry out the distinction which every one wished to make between rural and urban districts. He thought a limited number should be fixed, and that 2,500 would be a reasonable number.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that after putting public-houses and beerhouses on the same footing, they could not all at once reduce everything to the original limit and establish a hard-and-fast line. When he put his Amendments on the Paper, they included not simply towns but also parishes, which were afterwards changed to populous places. But when they came to decide what populous places were, they found that of about some 200 districts all but about 30 would be included in that category. Therefore, it would be idle to require the magistrates to call them populous places when they already had the definition of urban sanitary districts.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, hon. Members had come down expecting to be advised by the Government to define a town to be a place with 2,500 inhabitants, but suddenly the Government had abandoned that definition and proposed another, including all urban sanitary districts, however small, and leaving it to the justices to call any other place they wished populous. But, inasmuch as the former class would include small villages, justices would be utterly non-plussed on what plea to avoid extending the hour of 11 to all the country. By adhering to the original definition of a town, no injustice would be done.
  SIR JOHN KARSLAKEsaid, he hoped the House would not adopt the addition proposed by the hon. Member, but would support the Government in striking out the words "two thousand five hundred." Population was a false test in a matter of this kind. The proposal of the Home Secretary gave a complete definition of a town without imposing a hard-and-fast line which would cause great injustice.
  MR. LEEMANsaid, he thought the Home Secretary must feel again the perilous position in which he had placed himself by his continual change of front. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down objected to the population test; but the question of population was that which the Government
  120
  itself had taken up. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause as it stood was unworkable, especially in places where the jurisdiction on one side of the street was under the county magistrates, and on the other side of the borough magistrates, as was often the case.
  SIR WILERID LAWSONsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say one word before the Question was put. He had not troubled them with any remarks during the progress of the Bill through Committee, but though he had not spoken, he had thought a great deal. The fact was that he did not know what to say, because the principle of the Bill had changed every day, and the details of it every hour. But he now spoke because it was evident to him that the Bill was getting from bad to worse, and they were retrograding at an unhappy pace. The right hon. Gentleman had already extended the hours of the beer-shops in all the small places within a radius of 15 miles from London by an hour at night; and the clause under consideration would, if carried, have the effect of giving another hour to the beer-shops through a large portion of the country. He asked, was it possible that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House—country Gentlemen representing largo and influential constituencies—could support any extension of the beer-shop hours? The last thing he expected to find was the great party on the Ministerial benches extending the hours of sale for beer-shops. If this atrocious clause—he hoped the language was Parliamentary—were carried, all he could say was, that he should do his very best to get the Bill thrown out on the third reading. He did not suppose he should succeed; but he had no doubt that he should receive the support of a number of people to whom the common decency and credit of that House were dear.
  MR. EVANSsaid, he had no desire to see the Bill rejected, but he knew of one particular case which would not be met by this provision, and which was a sample of others, and he should like to see an endeavour made to meet the requirements of such population.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 247: Majority 110.
  Question proposed,
  "That the words 'and any collection of houses adjoining a town as so defined shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Act with respect to the closing of licensed premises, he deemed to he part of such town,' be there inserted."
  MR. LEEMANsaid, that for the reasons he had given the House a few minutes ago he should propose that the House should now adjourn. He was quite certain the clause under consideration was both an unwise and an unworkable clause. They had seen again and again, night after night, Notices given in the morning, and when they came to discuss them in the evening, found that they were practically abandoned. It was therefore only just and fair they should have time for consideration of the words thus adopted by the House, and it was, he urged, important for the interests of the country and both sides of the House that an adjournment should take place.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Leeman.)
  MR. DISRAELI: This is a very remarkable Motion to make at the present hour of the night. I am quite sure that if the hon. Gentleman has any charges to bring against these who are conducting this Bill he could not have a better opportunity of doing it than the present, and he has no ground whatever, in my opinion, even if his statement were correct, for concluding with the Motion he has made. But I demur to the correctness of the statement. No changes of any importance have been made in the Government proposals. ["Oh, oh!"] At least there have been none but such as might be expected to occur in the conduct of a considerable Bill like the present. I trust that the House will reflect a little upon its position, and will recognize that this hour of the night is not a time to evade difficulties, but rather to meet and solve them. This is a moment when the mind of the House is matured, and when its energies come fresh from the spring. Half-past 11, in Committee of the Whole House—for we are virtually in Committee—is, I think, a time very favourable to the progress of business; and I trust, therefore, that the House will not assent to the suggestion of the hon. Member, but will proceed with the business in hand, and try, if possible, to finish it to-night.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that if the proposition of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had been accepted they would not be now in the difficulty in which they found themselves. They were not in Committee on the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to make some allowances on that account. His hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Leeman) who, it was fair to remember, had generally supported Government throughout the progress of this Bill, had not moved the adjournment on account of the lateness of the hour. It had been remarked by the right hon. Gentleman that the House was at present in a good condition for evading or solving a difficulty. [Mr. DISRAELI: Not to evade but to solve.] He (Mr. Forster) maintained that in order to solve difficulties like the present they needed the assistance of Government. Their difficulty, indeed, arose from the fact that they had not the assistance of Government. There were two grounds on which an adjournment might be asked for—one that the House was too exhausted to proceed, and the other that the Government did not seem to know its own mind. The latter was the case now. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not a matter of much importance; but, in reality, it was equal in importance to any other point connected with the Bill. Would the House allow him for a moment to go over the changes that Government had made. ["Oh, oh!"] It was natural that hon. Gentlemen who had supported Government in all the changes that had been made would not like to be reminded of them. In regard to the hour of closing public-houses, it had originally been proposed that outside the metropolis, in towns of more than 10,000 inhabitants, it should be 11.30, and that in all other places it should be 11. But a great pressure was put upon the Government, and an outcry came from all classes for closing at 11. They had agreed that all public-houses and beer-houses were to be put at the same hour; and, secondly, that all drinking houses in places not having 2,500 inhabitants were to be closed at 10. Thus had the Committee decided—that any towns having 2,500 inhabitants were to close at 11, and all places below at 10. Then came the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment,

  123
  ["Divide!"] these were new matters which they were discussing now. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was "That towns and populous places are both to be limited by a population of 2,500." A few days ago the word "parish" was struck out of the Bill; and this very evening the right hon. Gentleman started a fresh Amendment. He (Mr. Forster) supposed the right hon. Gentleman to know how to act in the matter; but it was clear that pressure had been put upon the Government; and it was time that the Government should not be in such an ostensibly uncertain state of mind. He should say that it was impossible this Bill could be acceptable in its present state, and he thought the Government would act wisely by allowing the debate to be adjourned.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought they had better proceed with the business of the Bill, and the questions which had nothing to do with it he was inclined to put on one side. When the right hon. Gentleman took upon himself to instruct the House, he should, at all events, try to be correct. First, he said that the Government had originally made up their minds that all places with 2,500 inhabitants should close at 11 o'clock. Now, in that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct. The right hon. Gentleman was inaccurate also in saying that the House was considering and discussing propositions different from what the Government had originally placed upon the Paper. The proposition of the Government was that 11 should be the hour in towns and populous places being urban, sanitary districts of over 2,500 inhabitants, and populous places, having no such limit. It mattered not whether the alteration expressed "towns" or "populous places." It was proposed simply to change the places from one category to the other, without making the slightest change really in the Bill. Practically, the present Amendments were the same as the Government had originally presented to the House.
  MR. DODSON, said, the Government had conducted the Bill with so much versatile ability that it was difficult to give the history of it. The Government had been recently congratulated on having a "back-bone," but it might now be more accurately said that they were an "invertebrate" Government.
  124
  There was nothing but "chopping and changing" from one Amendment to another. They professed to abolish magisterial discretion as to hours, but they were re-introducing such a discretion by the clumsy machinery of a discretion as to areas. The limit of population had been removed from town, and the Government definition of populous places was no definition at all. Under these circumstances, they were entitled to ask for an adjournment of the debate, that they might have time to consider the various definitions of populous places. He might, in conclusion, say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had told them a few minutes ago that the House was in "a discreet mood," but one of the changes that the Home Secretary was liable to had come over him since the Premier spoke five minutes ago.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 251: Majority 117.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he was not very much surprised by the majority which the Government had just obtained in the last division. The reasons which had been urged for further consideration by his hon. Friend who moved the adjournment of the debate had not been answered by the Members against the Motion, and he should therefore move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Bristowe.)
  MR. DISRAELI: I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite are losing their appreciation of the constitutional principle of government by majority. When I sat on these benches, of which I have had much experience, I was always ready to assert the rights of my friends; at the same time, I wished never to interfere with the legitimate course of Public Business when I felt that my opponents were supported by an unmistakable expression of opinion by these who sat behind them. Not with standing the epigrammatic conciseness with which the Motion has been made, I think, upon reflection, the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe) will see the propriety of withdrawing it. I need not

  125
  appeal to all opposite, because I am proud to remember that I saw many beside me in the Lobby just now. I wish only now to suggest that the last half-hour of our experience should be swept from our consciousness. If we had pursued our labours, we might have concluded the Report. Therefore, I trust the hon. and learned Member for Newark will not persist in his Motion, but will recollect there probably never was a time in which the Opposition could obtain less advantage by a course of that character. We are all animated by a desire to do our duty to our constituents, and I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the Motion, which, in the spirit of courtesy, I will not describe as unreasonable; and, with that good temper which is necessary in an Assembly like this for the due transaction of Public Business, will allow us to proceed with the Report so as to conclude it to-night.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that any opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to constitutional principles was, no doubt, entitled to every respect; but he did not recollect that the principle now laid down had been adhered to by the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends during the five years of the last Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Lowther), whom he did not now see in his place, and other hon. Members, as soon as they saw the hands of the clock moving to the figure of 12, moved the adjournment, no matter what the question was—the Irish Church Bill, the Irish Land Bill, the Ballot Bill, or any other important measure. They heard nothing then of the constitutional principle now laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. He was bound to confess that the right hon. Gentleman generally retired early from these contests, which sometimes lasted up to five o'clock in the morning. Like the Captain—
  "He fled full soon on the 1st of June,
  And bade the rest keep fighting."
  Hitherto the House gained by adjournments and postponements, because they got the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth thoughts of the Government; and why should hon. Members despair of the Home Secretary producing in a day more, or two or three days, from the depths of that "inexhaustible versa-
  126
  tility" with which the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had credited him, a perfect solution of the difficulty? He should support the Motion for adjournment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 244: Majority 113.
  Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he objected very much to wasting the time of the House, but unfortunately it seemed to be the case that when these Licensing and Beer Bills were under discussion, the House, and perhaps the Government, got into a very hazy state. A great many changes had been made in the Bill. One day it was understood that the public-houses were to be closed at 7, on another at 6, and so great had been the changes with reference to towns and populous places, that it was almost impossible for anyone to know what he was voting for. He confessed that he had never felt greater difficulty in knowing exactly on what question he had voted, and he thought the same thing applied to all the hon. Members, for whenever there was a division there was a great rush of Members to know what they were dividing about. He thought, therefore, it would be better to adjourn this debate while they were all in good humour. If this conflict proceeded, the result would be, as had happened on other occasions of a similar kind, that they would only get slightly irritated with each other, and think to-morrow morning what fools they had all been. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had told them a short time since that some of the Members on that side of the House had voted with them; but he (Lord George Cavendish) was informed that one of the most respected county Members on the other side had voted with the Opposition. He thought they would do well to adjourn the debate, and he would, accordingly move that it be now adjourned.
  MR. DISRAELI: I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord that it is always desirable to conduct the affairs of this House with good humour, and I am not at all sure that we might not have conducted them with still greater good humour this evening, had we been favoured with a larger share of the company of

  127
  the noble Lord; but I am afraid he has only joined our Council at this moment of distraction which he so much regrets. I, however, agree with him that there may be something in the subject which may, perhaps, render it desirable that we should all of us sleep upon the conclusions at which we have arrived. I am not desirous at all, at any time, to conduct the Business of the country in a manner which is not agreeable to both sides of the House; and, therefore, I will endeavour to make an arrangement which I hope will meet with the views of all hon. Members, and which will, at the same time, allow us to conduct Public Business in a manner which will be satisfactory to the country. I therefore, Sir, will not oppose this Motion for the adjournment of the debate; but what I propose is that we have a Morning Sitting, and I think we shall, under that rule which I myself many years ago had the honour to propose in this House, and which has generally been believed to work in a very healthy and advantageous manner, then be able to bring our minds, and the mind of the noble Lord amongst others, calmly to the consideration of this Business. I shall, therefore, at the proper moment—it being now half-past 12 o'clock—move that the House, on its rising, do adjourn to this day at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the side of the House on which he sat would have no objection to the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There was no desire on their part to impede the progress of this measure. The ground upon which these Motions had been made was the sudden change that had occurred in the mind of the Government. No discussion had ever been conducted in that House with a greater desire to help the Government than that on this Bill. He hoped that the Government would have made up its mind by to-morrow as to how they would deal with the important matters affected by this measure.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have any further alterations or Amendments he proposed placed on the Paper before the House adjourned.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had never made any change to-day at all. ["Yesterday."] Nor did he make any change yesterday. The only change
  128
  was that certain towns should be put in one list instead of another.
  MR. GOSCHENremarked that the right hon. Gentleman had two or three times told them that it was the same thing that these towns were in one list or another. Did he repeat that? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.] Well, in the one case they were liable, and in another case they were not. All the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not changed would not change the opinion of the House, and he hoped it would not change the opinion of the country.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobserved, that there was a very easy way in which the right hon. Gentleman could show that he had not changed the Bill, and that was by his not changing his word. If he kept to his word of that morning, they would know that he had made no change; but if he did not, he must not quarrel with them if they inferred that he had reasons for doing so.
  MAJOR O'GORMAN: Sir, seeing the effects of sorrow, upon my life I thought it was to-morrow. Really, Sir, I do not know whether it is to-morrow or yesterday, but I want to know at what hour the House will meet.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. DISRAELImoved that the adjournment be till 2 o'clock to-morrow.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, Two of the clock.

MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND)
re-committed BILL—[BILL 119.]
(Mr. Butt, Sir John Gray, Mr. Bryan, Mr. P. J. Smyth.)

MUNICIPAL PRIVILEGES (IRELAND)

  COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. VERNERmoved that the Chairman report Progress, alleging that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Vance) and other Members had left the House under the full impression that the Bill would not be proceeded with at so late an hour.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Verner.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought that a question of such import-

  129
  ance should not be proceeded with at so late an hour.
  MR. BUTT, who had charge of the Bill, opposed the Motion, urging that he could not get any other time for bringing on the Bill, and that he had a distinct pledge from the Chief Secretary that the Government approved of the Bill in principle.
  MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, the Bill was, he believed, opposed to the opinion of every well educated and respectable person in Dublin.
  MR. BUTTreminded the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he gave a distinct pledge that he would not attempt to alter the principle of the Bill or delay its progress.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not violate any pledge in objecting to go on at that hour.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 47: Majority 28.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]
(Sir Colman O'Loghlen, The O'Conor Don, Mr. Callan.)
POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 95.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENmoved that the Bill be now read a second time, the object of which was to enable Poor Law Guardians to be elected by ballot.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Colman O' Loghlen.)
  MR. D. PLUNKETmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Plunket.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 39: Majority 28.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 22.]
(Mr. Whitwell, Mr. Morley.)
WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL— [BILL 22.]

  COMMITTEE.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4 (Land vested in corporations of boroughs may be laid out in sites for dwelling-houses).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 8, after the word "borough," to insert the words "subject to the powers and restrictions contained in section ninety-four of fourth and fifth William the Fourth, chapter seventy-eight."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Monk.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 79: Majority 55.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to amend and enlarge the powers of the Acts relating to the Navigation of the River Shannon; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. [Bill 157.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.