HC Deb 08 May 1874 vol 218 cc1991-2022
MR. R. SMYTH

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the present state of the Law and of public opinion in Ireland with respect to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday; and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, the Law which prohibits the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Scotland ought to be extended to Ireland, said: I owe to the House an explanation of, and probably also an apology for, the form in which this question is now submitted to the judgment of Parliament. The House is aware that I introduced a Bill, the object of which was to make compulsory the closing of public-houses in Ireland during the whole of the Lord's Day, that Bill having stood for second reading on Tuesday last. On account of the prolonged and important debate of that evening I was precluded from submitting the measure for discussion, the hour of half-past 12 having been reached before the Orders of the Day were read, after which time, as every hon. Member knows, an opposed Bill in charge of a private Member cannot be considered. I was then informed by Members of long Parliamentary experience that it was hopeless to expect a debate and division on the Bill during the present Session, unless my way was facilitated by the Government. I applied to the Government for a night, but it did not consist with their arrangements to grant my request, and I then at once withdrew the Bill, and determined to take the sense of the House upon an abstract Resolution. The question is one in which the people of Ireland are deeply and all but universally interested, and I am anxious to know as soon as possible how far this House is disposed to make a concession to Irish opinion on a subject which is totally withdrawn from the region of party politics. I wish to say, in all sincerity, that I do not bring forward this Resolution in any spirit of hostility to the licensed victuallers of Ireland. That great general question I let alone, as it lies outside the terms and scope of my Resolution. The traders and the trade in liquor, distilled and fermented, may be most respectable and proper on six days of the week—superior in respectability to many other lawful traders and trades—but what I have to show is this, no more and no less, that it is for the advantage of Ireland, and that it is the wish of Ireland, that this particular trade should be subjected to the same restrictions on Sunday as those which are imposed upon other trades having to do with articles of popular consumption. I find it necessary to say this, because some misconceptions prevail as to the motives which actuate those who are promoting this movement, and as to the method they adopt for compassing the end they have in view. I have here a circular issued by the Licensed Grocers' and Vintners' Protection Association of Ireland, in which it is pro-claimed that the friends of Sunday closing "employ themselves not in promoting temperance, but in traducing the characters of all who are engaged in the licensed trade." Now, apart from the fact that those who are active outside this House in seeking a modification of the law are men of the most unimpeachable character and unquestionable benevolence, free from every just suspicion of selfishness—apart from that, I must remind the House that a considerable proportion of the spirit dealers of Ireland are in favour of Sunday closing, have petitioned this House to that effect, and are among the most active promoters of the movement. Surely these men, who are in the trade, are above suspicion, and cannot be supposed to be traducing their own character, or writing down their own condemnation. But, whatever some people may say or do outside this House, I emphatically disclaim making the Motion a basis of attack upon a trade which has the sanction of the Legislature, and which is meeting what is still regarded as a want of the community. It is very difficult for Englishmen to comprehend why a movement of this sort should become so popular in Ireland; because there are ideas entertained in England, espe- cially about the use of beer, which seem inconsistent with the adoption of any such law as that which I advocate, and which to the most of Irishmen seem very strange. To illustrate what I mean, I may mention that I had lately a conversation with an intelligent English gentleman on the subject of the brewers' licence, of which he very much complained. Indeed, he appeared to think, and in effect said, that, if it were not for the persecution to which brewers are subjected, England would be the freest country in the world. I urged that, in a matter of revenue, luxuries ought to bear their full share of the national burdens. "And do you call beer a luxury?" he asked, with surprise and almost pity—"I call it a necessary of life, and I would not keep any man in my employment who did not drink two pints of beer in the day." An Irish labouring man who had never been out of his own country, and who knew no habits and customs but those of his own country, would be astonished to hear such a sentiment as that propounded. The Irish poor do not drink beer at all, but a liquor of more potent qualities, which is far more rapid in its action, and, I suppose, more suited to the liveliness of the Irish temperament. I shall revert to that again; but just now I wish this House to consider that by the Act of 1833 public-houses in Ireland were thrown open at 2 o'clock, and the law continued so until 1872. The evils arising from Sunday drinking had become so obvious to the country and to Parliament that, in the Intoxicating Liquors Licensing Bill of 1872, a further restriction was introduced as regards that day of the week, and a compromise was proposed and carried—the compromise, however, not being cordially acquiesced in—that public-houses should be closed on Sunday, except from 2 o'clock to 7 o'clock in some cases, and in others from 2 o'clock until 9. "Why was the change made? Because the country found that to keep public-houses open till 11 o'clock on Sunday night led to growing and intolerable evils. The people were at leisure on that day, and laborious occupations being relaxed, temptation came with a force that it was hard to resist. Parliament, I am sure, never dreamed that by closing public-houses during a part of Sunday it was indicting a wrong upon the people. It was done for their good and for their protection, and no remonstrance has ever come from the people of Ireland that their liberties were unduly invaded. The experiment which Parliament tried has been so far successful that we now ask Parliament to take a further step in the same direction. Drinking has been greatly diminished on Sunday, as police statistics show, and yet there has been no complaint that the people were subjected to partial coercion as regards their Sunday life and practices. Now, what is the evidence we have as to the state of public opinion? There are only two ways whereby the House of Commons can arrive at an accurate estimate of the force of popular opinion. The one is by Petitions, and the other is by the votes of Members themselves, who must be supposed to gauge with some interest the sentiments of their constituents. Well, I am willing that Irish opinion should be measured by these two tests—by the Petitions which have been presented and by the votes which the Irish Members will this night record. As to the first test, we have Petitions from 50 Corporations and Boards of Town Commissioners, from 80 Boards of Guardians, from the Governing Bodies of all the leading religious denominations in Ireland, from the licensed grocers and victuallers of Dublin, from the grocers' assistants in Dublin—a Petition signed by 730 of them—from public meetings, from congregations, from incumbents and churchwardens, and from people of every class and creed, and not one Petition against the measure. It cannot be affirmed that the people do not Petition because they have no fear that the law will be changed. On the contrary, a portion of the trade has been exceedingly active in endeavouring to stir up the people to resist the measure by every constitutional means—and petitioning is the most constitutional of all means—and yet there has been no response. Why? For this simple reason—that, with the exception of a certain class of publicans themselves, the people of Ireland are either favourable to Sunday closing or wholly indifferent. Another argument, drawn from popular opinion, is this—Sunday closing has been tried in three Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland with perfect success. If the people were not either favourable or indifferent there would surely be remonstrances heard from Kilkenny, Cashel, and Kilmore, where the experiment has been tried. But I shall let the distinguished, philanthropic, and patriotic Prelates who have initiated the movement speak for themselves. The right rev. Dr. Furlong, Bishop of Ferns, says, in 1872— The closing of public-houses on Sundays in this diocese dates from June, 1857. It has been since that time faithfully observed; and the seenes of drunkenness and disorder which were in former times but too frequent, have altogether disappeared. The most rev. Dr. Leahy, Archbishop of Cashel, writes thus— The experiment we have made in this diocese, put to the test of a 12 years' trial, has, thank God, realized my most sanguine expectations. Does it not, moreover, justify my strong conviction of the practicability of applying—and of the great gain to the cause of public morality that must arise from applying—a similar law for closing public-houses on Sundays to the whole kingdom: To be successful, however, in the large towns, it must be the law of the land, with or without the law of the Church. Unaided by the State, the law of any Church forbidding the sale of spirituous liquors on Sundays would not be observed, could not be successfully enforced in the larger towns. The right rev. Dr. Conaty, Bishop of Kilmore, says— The closing of public-houses does not in any possible way contribute to illicit sale, as unlicensed houses are unknown amongst us. Any person with an accurate knowledge of the country knows that many of the deeds of daring and violence which have occasionally disgraced our people were concocted and matured in public-houses not able for Sunday traffic. The Sabbath being a day of rest, the young and unwary assemble in the haunts of the idler, the plotter, and the drunkard. Here it is that wicked and designing men ply their victims with drink, and then engage them in societies alike subversive to order and religion. Close the public-houses, and you deprive all those parties of a legalized rendezvous. Their daily toil or necessary avocations will prevent their meeting on week days. Perhaps some hon. Members will talk about coercion, and will, in an unguarded moment, call this the foreshadowing of a new Coercion Bill; but I ask the House to determine for itself whether the Irish people are in the habit of petitioning for Coercion Bills. They believe—rightly or wrongly—that they have enough of coercion; and you may depend upon it when they petition in favour of Sunday closing, the very last thing they believe is that they are praying to be coerced by the Imperial Parliament. In this connection I must trouble the House with some other testimonies. The Bishop of Galway writes— Anything I can do to assist you in your truly praiseworthy endeavours to have public-houses closed on Sunday I shall do most cheerfully. I hardly know of any measure that would prove a source of greater and more lasting blessing to religion and society. The present condition of things, the fearful evils resulting from Sunday drinking, are a disgrace to Christian civilization, and no exertion should be, omitted to remedy this state of things. Closing of public-houses on Sundays and holidays seems to be the most effectual available remedy. The Bishop of Ossory says—"I heartily wish every success to the Sunday Closing Bill." The Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin writes— Drunkenness, the source of nearly all the crimes committed in this country, and the occasion of temporal and eternal perdition to thousands of our fellow-creatures, is admittedly on the increase here and elsewhere. Hence, I cannot but wish success to the efforts of those benevolent gentlemen who are endeavouring to stop the growth of so hideous and degrading a vice by inducing Parliament to pass a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays. A measure of this kind seems well calculated to prevent the desecration of a day which should be specially devoted to the worship of God and the sanctification of our souls. I do not think it necessary to enter into any defence of the proposal to surround Sunday with special legislative sanctions, for the principle which underlies that proposal is universally recognized in British legislation. In the laws of this country, the Lord's Day is not as other days, and if we, who advocate the measure now under consideration, are twitted with being Sabbatarians, it is sufficient for our present purpose, even without making an appeal to that law which is, and ought to be, paramount within these walls, to make an appeal to the genius and principle of British law, which places a restraint on the trading-occupations of the Day of Pest. But, descending from this high platform of principle, I have no reluctance to argue the question on the lower ground of popular convenience. It is urged that the people must have drink on Sunday as on other days, and beer will not keep. Well, I am very sorry that beer—which, in England, is considered a necessary of life—will not keep. Is there any other necessary part of the food of man which has within it such elements of mortality and decay? It is strange that this 19th century, so fruitful in discovery, has produced no chemist of sufficient genius and philanthropy to provide some means whereby a poor man's draught-beer can be kept alive from Saturday night till Sunday afternoon. Is that all that is needed to carry this Resolution? But the House will observe that, even if that achievement were added to the triumphs of the 19th century, it would only affect England and not Ireland, for, as I have said, the poor in Ireland do not drink draught-beer at all. They drink whisky. [Laughter and cheers.] Yes, but they drink it as a stimulant and not as food. And what will be more surprising still to English Members is this—that Irish labouring men do not drink, as a daily beverage, any intoxicating liquors at all. [Ironical cheers.] That statement is evidently received by a few hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House with incredulity; but I challenge any Irish Member of this House to stand up in his place and tell us that to his knowledge it is the custom of Irish labourers to have either beer or whisky on their daily dinner-table as a portion of their ordinary nourishment, as English labourers have their beer in England. They know that there is nothing of the kind. The Irish poor drink at fairs and markets, and for good companionship; but this theory of drink being a necessary of life has not yet found a footing in Irish civilization. Hence the whole Sunday beer argument is inapplicable to Ireland. As regards whisky, if it will not keep from Saturday night till Sunday afternoon, the fault is not in the whisky. Again, we shall be told that this is class legislation—the rich have their clubs on Sunday, and why should not the poor have their taverns? Well, in my humble judgment, the best club for both rich and poor on the Lord's Day is their own family circle. But that will by some be considered as a transcendental, and even antiquated view of life. Be that as it may, I see no analogy whatever between a club and a public-house. A club is a select society of gentlemen, associated because of some community of opinion or object. [Dissent.] Is not that so? I stand corrected; but that is what I understand by a club—that the members select the members; but in a public-house there is no balloting for admission, nor is there any blackballing of a village desperado of extreme practices or opinions. Further, a club is composed of persons of one sex; whereas public-houses are frequented by promiscuous assemblages of both sexes. I heard a clergyman from the East of London say, not long since, at a public meeting, that he set a trustworthy man to watch a tavern in that part of the City one Sunday evening, and he found that from half-past 6 until 9 o'clock, 770 persons entered the tavern, and of these, more than two-thirds were young persons of both sexes under the age of 20 years. And this, we are gravely told, is similar to the rich man's club. But the vital difference is—and it is here the analogy totally breaks down—a rich man can visit his club and drink none—a poor man must drink if he visits the public-house at all. He cannot have society without it, for if he will not drink he must make room for some-body who will. I now turn the other edge of the argument, and I affirm that, as the rules of society now stand, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and if it is desired to place the poor on the same footing as the rich—and I. for one, most heartily wish it, though I have serious misgivings about the real friendship of those who will give the poor drink, and withhold from them some other thing which would do them more good—if you aim at equality, then I submit that the first important step in that direction will be the closing of public-houses on Sunday. As the case now stands, there is no analogy between a club and a public-house. You might as well say that there is a similarity between a watch and a farmer's cart, because both of them have wheels. There is another reason why we expect legislation in this direction to take place with respect to Ireland. Parliament has already conceded the principle of separate legislation in this matter by enacting a law for Scotland the exact counterpart of that which Ireland now seeks. Scotland asked it, and got it. There is au impression prevailing in the outer world—perhaps it is only a superstition, but it prevails—that a majority of Scotchmen on a purely Scotch subject is infallible, and I am sure I should be sorry to see any reversal of that political dogma, for I believe nobody understands their affairs better than they do themselves. A majority of the Members and constituencies of that country came to Parliament in 1853 with a request that public-houses should be closed during the whole of Sunday, and the thing was done at once. Scotland, I would request the House to remember, was not unanimous; and, therefore, you cannot fairly demand unanimity in Ireland. That law was passed for Scotland 20 years ago, and the country in whose interest it was enacted has never come asking its repeal. So far from that being so, I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) that the people are so well satisfied with the present state of things that it would raise a storm of resistance all over the country if Parliament were to make any attempt to throw open the public-houses on the Lord's Day. But no such attempt will be made. No theories of assimilation will ever prompt a prudent Legislature to thrust upon a nation that does not want it a measure to repeal the Forbes Mackenzie Act. There may be Members of this House who think that Scotland made a mistake in 1853, and again in 1862, and that drunkenness has rather grown than diminished in that country in later years. Now, that is au allegation which is not to be made good by vague assertions, and I most distinctly dispute it. Everyone who has thoughtfully considered this subject knows that the large cities is the difficulty Parliament has to contend with in any attempt to close public-houses on Sunday, and I have heard it asserted over and over again that in great cities like London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, the law could not be enforced. "Well, but what of Edinburgh? It has been enforced there, and with what result? In that city, the total number charged by the police for drunkenness in 1853 was 5,727: whereas in 1872 the number had fallen to 1,789. On Sundays in 1853 the number charged was 641; in 1872 it was only 150. From Sunday morning till Monday morning, in 1853, it was 333; in 1872 only 54. On Mondays in 1853 the number was 728; in 1872 it was 251. "Yes," some one will say, "but the people will lay in a supply on Saturday night, and get drunk in their own houses." If that were so, the country, at any rate, would be spared the rioting and public disgrace which ensues when Sunday evening assemblages become the worse for drink. I shall not attempt to appraise the moral distinction between a man getting drunk at home and going quietly to bed, and getting drunk in the public-house and breaking his neighbour's head. I am sure the publican would prefer the former method, because he gets the same drink consumed with equal profit and far less trouble to himself. So that if people will really supply themselves on Saturday night, then I claim the support of the publicans for this measure, for the increased trade of Saturday night will compensate for the abolished trade of Sunday. But we must have some proof of this home-drunkenness, and I do not know where it is to be found in Scotland, since the statistics are all against such a theory. The consumption of spirits in Scotland went down from 7,096,894 gallons in 1851, to 5,671,477 gallons in 1871, though the population had increased from 2,888,742 to 3,358,613. The diminution in the consumption of strong drink is most remarkable, and, in the face of these figures, I hope we shall be spared any attempt to throw discredit on the Acts of 1853 and 1862 in Scotland. Perhaps hon. Members will demur to this line of argument on the ground that Irish and Scottish ideas about the Sabbath differ very widely. But in what do they differ? Not certainly on any point which is raised, or ought to be raised, in this discussion, for we are not now concerned with questions of polemics, but with the one question of Sabbath sobriety. Happily, sobriety is not the appanage of any religions creed; and if, undercover of a free construction of Sunday law, you try to fasten upon the religious people of Ireland, whether Protestant or Catholic, a theory in favour of drinking in public houses on Sunday, I am persuaded you are crediting them with a social doctrine which they would be among the first in the United Kingdom to disavow. Who oppose us? I shall tell the House. It is the National Licensed Victuallers' Defence League of England. At a meeting of that body, held in Birmingham on the 14th of last month, the chairman is reported to have said that "the League was determined to oppose Mr. Smyth's Bill for the Sunday closing of licensed houses in Ireland, and to assist the Irish trade in rejecting it." We have reason to be very much obliged to these philanthropic gentlemen, who know as much about Ireland and its wants as a mole knows about the mountains of the moon, for taking our country under their protection. I am quite willing that Ireland should be ruled by the Queen, Lords, and Commons of this united nation, and may that union never be shaken; but I am not willing that the licensed victuallers of Birmingham should constitute themselves a Parliament for Ireland. All classes, occupations, creeds, political parties, have united in coming before Parliament to support this proposition. I offer no opinion on the question as it affects England; but I suspend my judgment until I hear the arguments. If it can be made out that necessity and mercy demand exceptional legislation as regards Sunday trading in liquor within the limits of England, then for my part I shall consider well these weighty pleadings in its favour; but with all that at present I have nothing to do. The majority of Irishmen—and, I am persuaded, the majority of their Representatives in this House—wish to have no Sunday trading in liquor in Ireland beyond the limits and ends for which inns were anciently instituted—the convenience of travellers and others who make them their temporary homes. Inns were originally intended to be places of rest and refreshment, and not places of carousal and revel, and I am far from saying that the traveller and the lodger should be debarred on Sunday from the rest and the refreshment which these establishments afford. But I beg the House to look at this question from an Irish point of view alone. Irish questions are at a heavy discount in the minds of many Englishmen just now, and I am not careful to inquire whether or not there are grounds for this fretful distrust; but when I call to mind the candid and generous assurances which came from the Treasury Bench early in the Session, in a speech by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland—a speech of which I never heard an Irish Member speak without satisfaction, or even admiration—["No, no!"]—I mean the speech delivered during the debate on the Address—assurances that Irish questions of a social and sanitary character would receive every consideration from the Government, I am encouraged to hope that on a question like this, which is social, local, and moral in its bearing, wholly divorced from party politics and from Imperial entanglements, this House of Commons, led by a powerful Government, will pay some kindly and even indulgent deference to Irish opinion. Scotland is with us. May I appeal to England? I am well aware that there are sometimes unreasoning forces lying behind us in our constituencies, impelling us onward to reluctant action. But reason and justice will triumph in the end, if we have only the courage to use the one and to do the other. I am among those who have thought that the interests of Ireland would be best maintained by an unimpaired union with the sister countries; but when we find the Members of Parliament, to whose counsels we cling, coming down to this House to overbear the Irish vote on a question which concerns only the social habits of the people, and has no political significance whatever, there will be secret reflections whether we are much wiser than many of our fellow-countrymen who have disavowed all confidence in the present Government of their country. Even to carry this Resolution I do not want an Irish Parliament; but I must add that if we had an Irish Parliament, it is among the first that would be carried. I have no more to say. I thank the House most heartily for its indulgence, and leave the issue in its hands.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in Order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the law which prohibits the sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Scotland ought to be extended to Ireland,"—(Mr. Richard Smyth,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. CALLAN

I rise to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and I wish to state very distinctly that I am not acting as an advocate of the licensed victuallers, nor because I am in favour of the unrestricted, and much less the indiscriminate, sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland on Sundays. I oppose the Motion, because I dislike all Motions tending to such compulsory prohibitive legislation, and also because the Motion, if carried, will do more to promote illicit drinking in "shebeen houses"—an Irish name for whisky shops of the lowest order—than anything that could be proposed. I entertain rather a sanguine opinion that the Members representing English constituencies in this House will aid us, who are not the small minority of Irish Members that he described, in preventing such unfair legislation with regard to an important portion of Irish trade. I have been surprised by reading in an Irish newspaper a report of a deputation to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which I find it stated that the greatest and most complete unanimity exists in Ireland among all classes and trades as to the desirability of passing this Motion and the Bill to which it refers. I take it from my own personal knowledge that there is nothing like unanimity in favour of this Bill; on the contrary, as the division will show, there is no unanimity among the people of Ireland, and still less among the Irish Representatives in this House, on the subject. It is true that a very inconsiderable minority are in favour of the extension to Ireland of what, for want of a better name, I may call the Scotch Sabbatarian observance; but I submit that the hon. Gentleman has made out no case whatever for his Motion, and as this is the first occasion on which such a Motion has been brought before this Parliament, perhaps the House will allow me to refer briefly to the history of the Sunday Trading in Ireland Bill, which was brought before the late Parliament. In 1868, a Bill for regulating the sale of fermented and distilled liquors by retail on Sunday in Ireland was prepared and brought into this House by the hon. and gallant Member for Longford (Major O'Reilly), and the then Members for Monaghan and the City of Dublin—Lord Cremorne and Mr. Pim. The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on February 28th, and its object was to extend the prohibition of the sale of liquors on the premises to the whole of Sunday; but it permitted the sale of liquors to be drunk off the premises from 2 to 4 and from 8 to 9, and their sale by eating-house keepers to their customers at meals. After discussion in this House the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of 15 Members. That Committee sat for 13 days, extending over two months, and they examined 22 witnesses, including pre sent and exstipendiary magistrates, Chief Commissioners of Police, and others of large experience relating to every kind of drinking in Ireland, and their unanimous Report came before the House in the form of a Bill as amended by the Select Committee, and introduced by the same hon. Gentlemen on the 26th May in the same year. That Bill merely restricted the hours for the sale of liquors, either in or off the premises, from 2 to 7 in rural districts, and from 2 to 9 in cities and towns, and it gave powers to magistrates to extend or restrict the hours within certain limits. The Bill, however, was not persevered in, and in 1869 it was understood that the subject would be dealt with by the Government. The Government did deal with ft in 1872, when they embodied in their Bill the recommendations of the Select Committee. They fixed the hours of sale as they now exist in Ireland on Sundays—in the rural districts from 2 to 7, and in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants from 2 until 9. I may ask, what case has been made out to justify any interference with the existing Act, almost before we have had time to realize its beneficial effects? What evidence has he brought forward to displace that given before the Select Committee? The hon. Gentleman has brought forward no evidence, but he has largely quoted the opinions of Prelates, and I must say that he has almost menaced a section of this House with the opinions of certain members of the hierarchy. As a strong and decided Ultramontane Roman Catholic, I give every obedience to my Bishops in their proper sphere, but I would not permit their interference with me here, any more than I would permit the interference of any other of my constituents here, where I am acting in my representative character. Has he produced any report in favour of this change from magistrates, from police, or from any of the authorities who are responsible for the good order and government of Ireland, and the accuracy of which could be tested? In the evidence given before the Committee which sat on this subject in 1868, one of the Chief Commissioners of Police in Dublin states that public-houses in Dublin and elsewhere in Ireland were generally very well conducted, and if they were closed on Sundays they would be superseded by low unlicensed houses, where necessarily a great deal of drinking and disorder must occur. That was the evidence of a man who has had ample ex- perience of the present system, and he adds that it is not advisable at present to change it. The day may come, he says, when it can be done, and he hopes it will; but during the present generation it would not conduce to the public benefit to make any alteration. Then, again, there is the testimony of Mr. Richard Carr, the Chief Superintendent of the Dublin Police; and what does he state, after 30 years' experience? That drunkenness has greatly decreased, and that it is not at all necessary to close public-houses on Sundays. There is, he continues, less drunkenness in Dublin on a Sunday than any other day in the week, and he is quite certain that closing public-houses on Sundays would lead infallibly to illicit drinking. The Mayor of Cork stated before the same Committee that such a measure would create discontent, and a most eminent Catholic clergyman of Dublin, the very Rev. Canon Spaight, declared the total closing of public-houses on Sundays was a measure he could not recommend; that people came out on those evenings to walk and inhale the fresh air; and that it would be a very great hardship if they were not permitted to obtain some refreshment. The Mover of this Resolution referred to the unanimity of Irish Members as shown by their votes on the last division. I am not prepared to accept that unanimity as a guide to the present state of feeling, for I will not accept the unanimity of the last Parliament on a measure of social coercion, any more than I am or was prepared to accept it for the coercion of my country; and it is a singular fact that every Gentleman who voted in the last Parliament for Sunday closing in 1870 or 1872, voted for political coercion for Ireland, and the majority of them have boon relegated to private life. The hon. Gentleman compared the amount of drinking in Ireland and in Scotland, and he said that Scotland, in 1851, with a population of 2,888,742, drank 7,096,894 gallons of spirits—which is an extraordinary quantity—while, in 1871, a population of 3,358,613 in Scotland only drank 5,671,477 gallons. But he did not inform the House that that was caused by the equalization of the spirit duties. I will now give him a fact that he may get up some statistics upon. It is as to the improved drinking habits of the people of Scotland since the Sunday Closing Act has been in force. I may mention, as a statistical fact, that even though that country has been favoured by the operation of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, Scotland, with a population of 3,500,000, now consumes 500,000 gallons of whisky more than Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000—so that with that Act, a Scotchman drinks nearly twice as much spirits as an Irishman. I should like to quote a newspaper which is the organ of the body whose worthy representative we have in the hon. Member. It says that an excellent example has just been set in the Dominion of Canada, and that "many speeches have been made or spoiled, and many a vote given or lost, through the influence of what is called a heated imagination." It goes on to use that as an argument for this Bill, and declares that the destinies of our Empire may some day be affected very seriously by "the consumption of liquor on the premises." But I do not think there is any danger to be apprehended from allowing the Irish artizan to drink beer on Sundays, and as one who has devoted great attention to the subject, and who has mixed much with the Irish artizan class—not in the North and South only, but in the centre, in Leinster and Ulster—I can assure the House that there is no unanimity on the point in Ireland, and that, on the contrary, in the county from which I come, and the adjoining districts, there is a strong and most determined hostility to this Sabbatarian Bill.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD

said, he should oppose the Motion. He considered it a much worse evil that public-houses should be closed on Sunday than that they should be open; because people who were loud of drinking would lay in a stock of liquor on the Saturday night, and be certain to be more drunk than ever on Sunday. In the ordinary course of things, on the other hand, if people went into a public-house on a Sunday, and exhibited the least sign of inebriation, they would receive notice to quit. The hon. Gentleman's proposal was a serious thing for Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen who approved of it had good reasons to be satisfied with the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act in Scotland; for there the people got so drunk of a Sunday as to occasion no trouble to their friends or to the police except to cart them home. If it should come to pass in Ireland, however, each individual member of a family would feel it his duty to lay in a stock for the Sunday, and were the wish to do so not granted, there would be family jars; and, he feared, sometimes of a very serious character. He thought it a most tyrannical wish on the part of anyone to endeavour to stop a poor man's boor on the Sunday. The rich had their cellars, and were indifferent—they could keep their beer for any length of time in prime condition. He had no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. E. Smyth) had an excellent cellar, but the poor man could not afford to keep one; and he should like to ask any bon. Gentleman, supposing he could only afford two glasses of beer a-day, how he would like to have to draw it in a jug on Saturday night, and put it in the cupboard until Sunday? It would be more like physic by that time than beer. There was an old ditty with which many hon. Members were no doubt familiar, which he thought peculiarly applicable to the proposition to stop a poor man's beer on a Sunday. It had a touch of sentiment about it, which he trusted would not appeal in vain to the better feelings of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and its closing lines were— Confuse their eyes If ever they tries to rob a poor man of his beer!

THE O'CONOR DON

I do not intend to follow the noble Lord who has just addressed the House in regarding this subject as one suitable only for laughter; because this is a question of far greater importance than to be laughed down by jokes. But before I go any further I would like to make one remark on the almost concluding observation of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), who stated, as a matter of fact, that when a Bill of this description was brought forward in the late Parliament, every Irishman who voted in its favour had also voted in favour of the Irish Coercion Bills, or Bills that ordinarily went by the name of Coercion Bills, and that nearly all of them had lost their seats at the late Election. I cannot answer for any other hon. Member but myself, because I do not remember the names of those who took part in that Division; but I can say for myself that since I have been in this House I never voted for a Coercion Bill, although I did vote for the Bill introduced by Sir Dominic Corrigan. Therefore that statement is without foundation.

MR. CALLAN

It was wholly unintentional on my part to appear to include the name of the hon. Member for Eos-common. I have the greatest respect for that hon. Gentleman, and would not like to impute anything of the kind to him.

THE O'CONOR DON

I accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman with regard to myself; but I dare say if he looked at the Division Lists he would find the names of others as well, about whom he has been mistaken. Further, I believe on that occasion there were only eight Members representing Irish constituencies who went into the lobby against the Bill brought in by Sir Dominic Corrigan; and out of these eight Members, as I am informed, at least a majority have not been returned. But, Sir, this is not the real question at issue: I would come to what is the proposal before the House. No man in this House has naturally a greater objection to restrictive measures upon the transactions of individuals, and upon the proceedings of trades than I have. No man in this House holds a stronger opinion that we should legislate as little as possible in interfering with social arrangements or with the business of the country; and I should be the last man in this House to support a Bill such as is embodied in the Resolution before the House if I believed it would come under that description. But when I hear that argument used against a Bill for restricting the sale of liquors on Sunday, I confess I feel quite amazed; because, what is all our legislation with respect to the sale of liquors? Is it not all restrictive? Is there any man who would propose in this House that there should be unrestricted sale of liquors at every hour on every day, by every man who chose to sell them? We know that such a proposal as that would not be listened to for a moment. Therefore, there is no question here of principle—it is simply a question of degree. At the present moment you do restrict the sale of liquors on every day of the week, but you do not restrict other trades, and the question with regard to a further restriction on Sundays is not a question of principle but singly a question of de- gree, and that degree is to be arrived at by ascertaining what, in the general opinion of the country, would be best for the public good. That is the point we have to regard. As to this proposal in reference to the sale of liquors on Sunday, instead of the Resolution being one embodying a restriction, it is to my mind one which simply does away with a favourable exemption which has hitherto been enjoyed by the publicans; instead of the proposal foreshadowed in the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. R. Smyth) being one for the imposition of restrictions, it is simply one for doing away with exemptions. You have, as has already been pointed out to the House, restricted the carrying on of every other trade on Sunday; but you have existing at the present moment exceptions in favour of the sale of liquors, and it is simply the doing away with these exceptions that the hon. Gentleman advocates, and not the origination of restrictions. So that upon both points I say that the Bill foreshadowed in this Resolution would in no way offend against our peculiar notions of legislation. But the real question after all is this—Would the passing of a Bill of this description tend to the general good of the country? Would it, in other words, put down excessive drinking on Sundays? Now, Sir, I think that that will in a great degree depend on what is the general feeling of the country. We know that in certain districts in Ireland the public-houses have been closed voluntarily through the instrumentality of certain Prelates of a certain Church, the population having voluntarily submitted themselves to ordinances promulgated by those Prelates. But we have heard it argued—and I entirely agree in the statement—that the results following from this voluntary closing of public-houses cannot be taken as a proof that similar results would arise if the public-houses were closed against the wish of the people. Therefore, I say that what we have to consider is this—Are the people of Ireland in that state of feeling in, respect to this subject that they will not feel the closing of these public-houses a grievance, and will not feel a want arising from the fact of their not being continued open? This is the really important question at issue on this point, and I for a very long time was unable to make up my mind upon it; but, on a full consideration of the subject, I have come to the conclusion that in the vast majority of instances public opinion is in favour of this proposal; and this being so, I believe that the same good results would arise that have already arisen in those districts where undoubtedly the people are in its favour, and where the public-houses have been voluntarily closed on the Sunday. The hon. Member for Dun-dalk (Mr. Callan) has spoken of something like an inconsiderable minority of the people of the country being in favour of the proposal; but I do not know in what way we in this House are to arrive at what is the majority or the minority in Ireland with regard to this question. The hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. R. Smyth) adduced certain proofs that the majority of the people in Ireland were in favour of the proposal. He alluded to the number of Petitions presented to this House in favour of the proposal by the corporations of many different towns and boroughs. A number of representative bodies—the Poor Paw Boards—in Ireland petitioned in its favour, and yet the hon. Member for Dundalk, without adducing one single argument or proof that there was any feeling in Ireland against it, asks the House to believe that those in favour of it are an inconsiderable minority. The hon. Member for Dundalk asks, where are the expressions of opinion on the part of the magistrates in its favour? I was of opinion that the Poor Law Boards of Ireland were mainly composed of the magistrates of the country. We have it on the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth)—which I assume to be correct—that Petitions hare been presented from 80 Boards of Guardians in Ireland in favour of this proposal; and that number I believe to be a majority of the Boards. Well, these Petitions are either accepted and approved of by the magistrates who are members of those Boards, or they represent, not the magistrates, but the elected guardians returned by the people of the country. Therefore, I put this alternative to the hon. Member for Dundalk—these Petitions either represent the opinions of the magistrates, or they express the opinions of the representatives of the people in whose interests it is argued these public-houses are to be kept open; because the, elected guardians are responsible to small farmers of the country—the small tenants—in whose behalf these public-houses would be kept open, and if the guardians were to sign Petitions to Parliament to have these houses closed, and that this was considered a grievance, they would very soon be sent about their business. They know this so well that they would not venture to send stick Petitions without being sure they were supported by the feeling of the electors. I think, then, that we must take these opinions of the Boards of Guardians as representing fairly the two classes—the magistrates on the one hand, and the elected guardians on the other—and I contend that, as representing both, they form a very important element in the consideration of what is the feeling of the Irish people on this subject. It is astonishing to find in the face of this an hon. Gentleman saying that there is only an inconsiderable minority in favour of the proposal, while he does not adduce one single argument in proof of any feeling against it. My opinion is that the feeling of the people of Ireland of all classes is in favour of it. I know that there might be great difficulties in carrying out the proposal in some of the large towns. This was one of the reasons why I hesitated for a long time about joining very heartily in the movement. It was not because I thought that in nine-tenths of Ireland it would not result in good; but I did think that in certain large towns it might be very hard to carry it out in practice, and that if this were not really done it might, I thought, be really worse than if the proposal were not passed into law. But I think, Sir, that the example of Scotland is a sufficient justification for at least trying the same thing in Ireland. Of course, we are told that there is a great deal of drinking on Sundays in Scotland, and so, I believe, there is; but I think it a remarkable fact with regard to the operation of the Act in Scotland that whether it be for good or bad the general feeling of the people of Scotland is in favour of continuing it, and that it would be impossible to repeal it without creating such excitement in Scotland as this House would never face. To my mind this fact does away with all the argument about the number of gallons of whisky consumed in Scotland as compared with the consumption in Ire- land. We have before us the fact that the Act has been in operation for such a length of time in Scotland, and that no one as yet has ever ventured to propose its repeal. Why, then, should we not try it in Ireland? If there are difficulties as regards the great towns in that country, I hope they may be got over as they have been in Scotland, and if there are none, then we shall not have them to encounter. For these reasons, then, it is my intention to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry.

SIR. MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

It was impossible to listen without respect and attention to the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) in support of a Motion which has been backed by no small amount of popular opinion among those who, acting from motives of philanthropy, are endeavouring to promote the cause of temperance in Ireland. I fear, however, that in the Motion before the House we only have another example of how impracticable these ideas sometimes are, for if this proposal were to be put into practice in Ireland, I believe it would be found utterly inefficient to secure the objects in view—that it would create evils far worse than those which at present exist, and that it would be the cause of a very great amount of inconvenience and discomfort to a very large proportion of the population. I think it is to be regretted that we have the proposal of the hon. Member for Londonderry put before us in the inconvenient shape of a Motion on going into Committee of Supply rather than in that of a Bill. It is, as it now stands, an abstract Motion. The hon. Member has not been able to show the House in what way he would carry it out, and I should be out of order in referring to the provisions of a Bill upon the same subject which he has introduced, and has very lately withdrawn. I certainly wish that instead of proposing a mere Rosolution the hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to find a day, which surely might have been possible at this period of the Session, on which he might have brought his scheme before the House in a proper shape. I will now lay before the House, as shortly as possible, the arguments which appear to be conclusive against the acceptance of the Motion. As far as I could gather from the hon. Member for Londonderry's speech, he supported his Motion mainly on two grounds—first, that beer and whisky were two entirely different things, and secondly, that legislation with regard to Sunday closing in Scotland had been successful. I will take the second argument first. I must say that I do not think the hon. Member for London-deny gave sufficient weight to the difference between the circumstances and feelings of Scotland and Ireland. It has been urged that the Sunday Closing Act in Scotland has been a decided success. I do not wish to enter into that question to-night; but I believe there can be no doubt that there is on Sunday, in spite of that Act, no inconsiderable amount of drinking in Scotland. And when we are told that the consumption of spirits in Scotland has considerably decreased since 1852, I would mention to those who urge this as an argument in favour of a Sunday Closing Bill that the reason for the decrease in the consumption of spirits is to be found not so much in the increased sobriety of the people as in the fact that the duty on spirits has been quadrupled. But I think I can give the House one little fact that will prove the difference between Scotland and Ireland in this matter. I read the evidence which the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) gave some years ago before a Select Committee on the Sunday closing question with regard to England; and the hon. Gentleman there stated that when the agitation for Sunday closing was first started in the city which he represents, there were out of 974 public-houses in Edinburgh, only 490 that were opened on Sundays. Well, but what is the case with regard to Ireland? The six-day licences have been fairly tried there, and I think that no one will assert that they have met with any amount of public support, or that any considerable number of these licences have been taken out. We have then these two facts, that without any law and purely on account of the Scotch feeling in favour of a rigid observance of the Sabbath, more than half the total number of public-houses in Edinburgh were closed on Sundays, while Sunday closing in Ireland, although supported by law, finds no favour with those who keep public-houses, and of course does not find favour with those who frequent them. The proposal before the House has also been supported by evidence adduced as to the popular feeling in Ireland in its favour. If the House will consider what has passed in this country within the last 10 or 20 years, I think it will be of opinion that a popular feeling is not always a safe guide in questions of this kind, and that, at any rate, of all the unsafe guides we can trust to, popular feeling—before it is thoroughly awakened—is about the most unsafe. Some years before I had the honour of occupying a seat in this House, a measure was passed—I think in the year 1854—which shortened the hours of the sale of liquors on Sunday in this country. Those who remember that time will also remember the agitation which ensued when the law came to be put in force. The Bill was carried almost unanimously through Parliament, and it was supposed to have been generally supported by the popular feeling of the country; but no sooner was it enforced than such an agitation was created against it that Parliament had to repeal it in the following Session. Let us take another example in the case of the Permissive Bill. It is not so many years ago that the Permissive Bill was in so promising a position in the then House of Commons, that, I believe, it even arrived at the barren honour of a second reading, while it certainly did seem to have a considerable amount of popular support in the country, and a fair chance of becoming law. But what, let me ask, is its position now? The real fact is that with regard to measures like the Permissive Bill, or the Sunday Closing Bill, there are a number of active philanthropists in the country who can always raise a considerable agitation in favour of their projects, but they in reality form what is, after all, an inconsiderable portion of the population; and the remaining part of the community, being as it were asleep at the time, and hardly aware that such measures are discussed, do not realize what is being done, and only arouse themselves when there is really a prospect of their being made law, or when they are actually enforced. I will venture to say that so far as any expression of popular feeling is concerned, we have nothing before us that will safely guide the House; and I may remind the House when Petitions in favour of the present proposal are spoken of, that during one Session of Parliament Petitions were presented with no fewer than 1,000,000 signatures, from persons in England, in favour of a Sunday Closing Bill for England and Wales. But I have another argument to urge. I would ask the House what is the history of past legislation, or attempted legislation, on this matter with regard to Ireland? I have taken some trouble to inquire into what was the state of the law before the time referred to by the hon. Member opposite—namely, the year 1832. I find that in an Act passed in 1807 no sale of spirituous liquors by retail was allowed between 12 o'clock on Saturday night and 12 o'clock on Sunday night, nor of wine, beer, ale, porter, cider, or perry, on Sundays before 2 P.M., except to travellers. But in the following year came a Sunday Closing Act, or something like it, for in 1808 I find that those who entertained persons in public-houses at anytime whatever on Sundays were liable to a fine of 40s., and of £5 on a second conviction. But this Sunday Closing Act was a dead letter, and in 1815 it was repealed, and the old Act of 1807 re-enacted, under which houses were opened in Ireland for drinking anything but spirituous liquors, except with regard to inmates or travellers, who were to drink anything they chose. This state of the law, as far as I can discover, remained until 1833, and I have no doubt, although I am not able to trace the reasons which induced Parliament to pass the Act of 1833, that the manner in which public-houses were regulated at that time was so bad that the Act of 1833, by which the hours of opening on Sundays were fixed from 2 in the afternoon till 11 at night, was not passed as an Act which opened houses that had before been closed, but rather as an Act to regulate the hours of sale. Well, Sir, what has happened since? Why, in 1868 the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Longford (Major O'Reilly), than whom no one is more thoroughly acquainted with the details of the question—being himself in favour of Sunday closing, introduced a Bill for closing public-houses on Sunday, except for drinking off the premises. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee, on which sat such ardent Friends of Sunday closing as Lord Claud Hamilton, and Mr. Pim, and a nobleman whose authority all will respect—the late Lord Mayo. The Bill which emerged from that Committee was not a Sunday Closing Bill, but proposed the hours of from 2 till 7 in the country, and from 2 till 9 in towns. These facts are strong as regards past legislation or proposed legislation, against the proposal of the hon. Member for Londonderry. But it has been said that because Sunday closing had been voluntarily adopted in certain dioceses in the South of Ireland—in the dioceses of Cashel, Ferns, and Kilmore—therefore a compulsory law ought to be extended to the whole of Ireland. I know of no more fallacious argument than that. The parish priests and the Bishops of those dioceses have the greatest spiritual influence over their flocks. They have exercised that influence in the cause of temperance, and all honour to them for so doing. They have persuaded the publicans throughout those diocese to adopt a voluntary closing Act; but it is precisely because this was adopted voluntarily that it succeeded. But why has not this movement been further extended? In one of those dioceses Sunday closing has prevailed for 15 years, and in another for 12, and yet the principle has not been extended to other dioceses that are equally Roman Catholic in population, and equally tinder the influence of the priests. I think the answer is this—that those dioceses mainly consist, if not entirely, of country districts, and that the great difficulty in this matter arises when you come to deal with the large town populations; and if you pass a compulsory law for the country and not for towns you will find another difficulty—namely, that of deciding on what is country and what is town. Probably there are no places to which it would be more hard or more unfair to apply such an Act than those to which people go from England, as well as from different parts of Ireland, for the sake of beautiful scenery or fresh air. Those are places where the application of a Sunday Closing Act would cause great and unnecessary inconvenience. And why should not people in Treland have the facility which the law now gives them of obtaining moderate refreshment in public-houses on the Sunday afternoons? Is it because they drink whisky and not beer that they are to be debarred from indulging in a glass on a Sunday? It appears to me that this measure must be looked upon as one which has reference not merely to Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry says that his proposal simply applies to Ireland, and that it has secured a very large amount of support from the most important public opinion of that country. I have endeavoured to show the House of how much value the support of public opinion has proved in the case of other measures of this nature; but this measure, although only intended to be applied to Ireland, contains principles which I hope will not be adopted by this House, either with reference to Ireland or England; because it embodies within itself an unnecessary amount of interference with the general public convenience, which will make the law to be regarded as so unfair and irksome as almost certainly to secure its evasion. The hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) has told us that restriction was already in force, and that, in fact, it was necessary for the liquor trade. I do not oppose restriction; but what I say is that restriction cannot go beyond certain bounds, and it is no more an argument in favour of total Sunday closing that you have already limited the hours of closing within the narrowest limits consistent with the public convenience, than it would be to say that because you regulate public-houses to a certain extent therefore you should close them altogether. Of course there will be in Ireland, as well as in Scotland, or anywhere else, a certain number of people who will get drink whatever the law may be, and those persons would, if this measure were passed, go to unlicensed houses, where they would be less under the supervision of the police or under no supervision at all, and therefore the results would probably be worse to the morals and sobriety of the people than at present. I hope that the House in considering this question will not look upon it merely as an Irish matter. I trust neither the hon. Member for Londonderry nor others who come from that country will wish to deny to English Members that right which we all possess, of considering to the best of our power any measure that is brought before the House. Any proposal on this subject must be dealt with by the votes of the whole of the British Par- liament, according to the arguments that may be laid before them. I have listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and to the debate that has taken place; but, so far, I do not sec that any reasons have been given why Sunday closing should be successful in Ireland because it may be popular in Scotland, or why we should impose upon Ireland a measure of restriction which we should necessarily oppose if it were proposed in this country.

MR. DICKSON

I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth). The unanimity which exists in Ireland on this question shows that there is no matter which is more important to the peace and welfare of the country. I have some experience as a magistrate of the degradation, and misery, and crime attendant upon Sunday drinking in Ireland, and I know how, in the great majority of cases amongst working men, they, instead of being at their work on Monday morning, stay away in consequence of having been drinking on the previous day. Were it not for the facilities for drinking which are supplied by the public-houses keeping open during the idle hours of Sunday, those men who stay away from their work on Monday would be ready and willing to go to it. The aim of the Motion is simply to aid in abating an evil which overshadows the land and has spread throughout every district in Ireland. The measure comes before the House with, I may say, almost the unanimous support of Irish Members and of the Irish people, backed by all the religious denominations throughout the country, which have long looked forward with great anxiety to its success and to the blow it will give to the vice of drunkenness that has existed, and still exists, over the country. In urging hon. Members to pass the Motion we say—"We only ask for Ireland what you have done for Scotland." I trust the House, considering the position Ireland occupies, will extend to her what it has already conferred upon Scotland. I am sure that the passing of this measure would cause a diminution in the number of habitual drunkards, by depriving them of the facilities they would have for obtaining drink on Sunday. Respectable working men would rejoice at the Legislature removing from their paths the temptation to drink on Sundays, because I believe that in Ireland drinking is circumstantial: that it takes place more for the love of company than the love of drink. Then there is another important aspect of this question, which should not be overlooked in these days of agitation for shortening the hours of labour. When we think of the 30,000 young men and women employed in public-houses occupied at work seven hours on Sunday, having been engaged already during the week 90 hours, we must come to the conclusion that they ought to have the opportunity of enjoying the Sunday. I will just read to the House what their opinions are. These persons have presented a Memorial to the House, in which they represent that the grievance they endured, and state that the time is now ripe for a change in the law, and hope that total Sunday closing-will be established. It has been urged as an argument against closing public-houses on Sundays, that it would increase the illicit sale of drink, and the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) has taken that view; but against that we have the testimony of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ireland, who has very clearly shown that such would not be the case. I will only now say that I hope the House will extend to Ireland what it has already extended to Scotland.

MR. CONOLLY

I regret very much, Sir, that the Government have chosen to oppose this most reasonable request: because it places me and other most faithful friends of the Government in a most difficult position, as we have to choose between being unfaithful to our Leaders or unfaithful to our constituents. Now, that is a very awkward position to be placed in. If I have not any choice—if I am driven into that position by the action of the Government, I have no hesitation in the line which I shall adopt; I shall be true to my constituents. But I am not satisfied with the line the Government have taken in this matter upon the argument which we have heard. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has addressed himself with great care to the question, but with all his care he has shown he was advocating a very bad ease. I will with great brevity, considering the late hour, point out where the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to have failed. First of all, he says that all classes in Ireland do not ask and are opposed to asking for what means, in principle, total closing on Sundays. Then we say that we give a man six days in the week during which he can have as much drink as he likes, and it is but a small sacrifice he would have to make, and but little to ask for—that with regard to which all classes are agreed—namely, that the Sunday should have an immunity from the liquor traffic. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has failed here. Then in the parallel which he has drawn between this popular request and the Permissive Bill, I say he has utterly failed. I, for one, always opposed the Permissive Bill; but I am strongly in favour of the modest request now before the House. If there ever was a measure which was suited to the genius of Ireland, that is the measure now before the House. It is asked for by all religious bodies in the country, much to their credit, following in that respect the sainted track of the Rev. Theobald Mathew. Father Mathew, by his unaided exertions, brought about the first step in the direction of putting an end to the vice of drunkenness in Ireland, and everybody who knew Ireland before the preaching of the Rev. Theobald Mathew will know that that man, and that man alone, put a complete stop at the time to the vice of drunkenness in Ireland. Well, Sir, if that can be done by the preaching of one humble priest in Ireland, I shall not be told, that which is agreed on on all sides in Ireland ought not to have a fair trial. I think the Government have come to a very precipitate determination on this subject, and I do not, think it is graceful in them to drive their best friends away from them. Whatever shall be the result, I shall be true to my constituency, though it makes me untrue to my Leaders, which I much regret.

MR. O'GORMAN

After the admirable speech which has been pronounced by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I must say that the wind is completely taken out of my sails. I oppose this Resolution absolutely, in the most downright way, and for this reason, that it is nothing more nor less—if, for instance, a Bill to its effect were passed—than the perpetuating of that which has been for many centuries the bane of Ireland—namely, the making of one law for the rich and I another for the poor. It is contended by everyone who has spoken upon this subject that gentlemen who belong to clubs in Ireland or England have the most perfect privilege of frequenting those places on Sundays, and drinking whatever they think proper; while at the same moment, according to the provisions of this Act—[Laughter]—well, of this Motion if it were put into an Act—a poor man is entirely prevented from having one single drop of liquor on that day. If this Bill is passed, a poor man who walks out for a few miles with his family on Sunday—perhaps on a very hot Sunday, perhaps on a very wet day—after having done six hard days' work, is absolutely prevented by this law, or would be if it were a law, from having one single quart of beer or a drop of whisky. Sir, I shall oppose this to the last. And why do I do so? Because I shall always oppose everything unjust. I do not care for its expediency. I place that altogether out of my view when justice is to be done, and this is one of those cases in which I say, let the heavens fall, but let not an atom of injustice be done to Ireland. Those are the reasons which influence me, Sir, in voting as I shall do to-night. Now, Sir, it has been stated that one of the chief items in the strength, or that the great strength of this Resolution lies in the fact that the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Ferns have prevailed upon their people to abstain from liquor on Sundays. I consider, Sir, that that is the very weakest point in the whole of their argument, and I will prove it. These pastors of the people have, by their zeal, piety, and exemplary lives, prevailed upon their people without an Act of Parliament to cease from drinking intoxicating liquors on Sundays. That may be and is all very well: but if you pass an Act of Parliament in this House preventing people from having liquor on Sunday's—pari passu with these illustrious prelates—that Act will not only be without force in Ireland, but that which has already been done by the gentle counsel and example of these illustrious priests will cease to have effect; and not only the people in those portions of Ireland which have not yet been brought over by the pressure of the Bishops will rebel against the Act, but also those in that portion which observes the Sunday closing principle will rebel against the gentle pressure put upon them by the Bishops, simply because of the coercive character of the Act. Under these circumstances. I shall oppose this Bill to the last as a piece of injustice, and as tending to establish one law for the rich and another for the poor.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 110: Majority 91.

Main Question proposed.

Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee deferred till Monday next.