HC Deb 12 February 1877 vol 232 cc183-203

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. RICHARD SMYTH

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I am happy to think that it will be hardly necessary for me to address myself to the provisions of this Bill, as happily the principle of it may now be regarded as generally admitted. When the Bill was read a second time last year there was an appeal against it on the ground that as soon as the masses of the people of Ireland became aware that the House of Commons was thoroughly in earnest in its desire to pass a Sunday closing law, an agitation would be at once set on foot in that country in opposition to the measure. We were then told that this House would be flooded with Petitions, that loud protests from all sides would be heard, and that indignation meetings would be convened in all parts of Ireland. I did not myself think that there was much force in those appeals. But notwithstanding the opposition which my Friends gave to that proposition a delay took place, and what has been the result? Indignation meetings, if we may so call them, have undoubtedly been held; but, instead of these meetings being convened for the purpose of protesting against the Bill, they have, so far as I am aware, in every instance been convened for the purpose of passing resolutions expressive of deep regret that the Bill did not become law last year. In fact, I think I am within the limits of strict accuracy in saying that in Ireland there is no public opinion whatsoever against this measure—at least, no public opinion against it has been expressed. Then, on the other side, Petitions unprecedented in number, and in the number of signatures attached to them, have been already presented to this House, and I may state that to-night Petitions signed by 89,000 persons in various towns of Ireland have been presented in favour of the Bill. This is, of course, only a small instalment of the Petitions likely to be presented. Large and enthusiastic meetings have been held in the great centres of population in Ireland which have passed resolutions in its favour; and, so far as I am aware, no resolution at any public meeting in Ireland has been passed against it. A canvass of the 19 large towns which the Government last year proposed to exempt from the operation of the Bill has been instituted with the following results—I shall merely give the aggregate without entering into details:-96, 934 householders have expressed their opinion in writing in favour of the Bill, and only 11,331 against. Of those same towns the licensed traders in liquors who have voted have expressed their opinion in the following proportion:—1,255 of these licensed traders have given their opinion in its favour, and only 1,037 against. Several elections have taken place in Ireland during the Parliamentary Recess, and in every instance an avowed supporter of this measure has been returned. The late Member for Sligo (Sir Robert Gore Booth) was a consistent opponent of this Bill. He has been succeeded by a friend of the measure. Of the five candidates who at first announced themselves for the representation of the county of Waterford, one gentleman proclaimed himself a strenuous opponent of the Sunday closing of public-houses. The electors of the county made short work of him, summarily dismissing him from the candidature, and he found no one to place his name on the nomination paper. In fact, in all the history of legislation in this House I believe no stronger case has ever been made for the passing of any measure, if we are to take public opinion as a test and guide of what ought to be done in the matter of legislation. I have only, Sir, to say that I have selected the earliest day at my disposal for very good reasons; at least, I think them very valid reasons. I was unfortunate in the ballot on Thursday last. I believe I was the last but one, my Bill coming out, I believe, No. 50 or 56, at all events very low down. I saw at once that it was quite impossible for me to obtain a day by deferring it to a distant part of the Session, and in consequence of a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford county (Mr. O'Clery), I was led to take the first available day of the Session for this Bill. The Chief Secretary, with that perfect frankness which has always, so far as I can judge, characterised his management of Irish business, and of all matters that come under his control, has stated to the House that it was not the intention of himself or the Government to offer any opposition to the principle of this measure, reserving to himself the right of taking the best means at his disposal of placing before the House certain evidence, which, in his opinion, was of a weighty character, against the application of the Bill to some of the largest towns in Ireland. After that frank statement of the right hon. Gentleman I thought I was justified in availing myself of the earliest day at my disposal for proposing the second reading of the measure. Then, as regards some hon. Friends of mine from Ireland, who opposed the Bill last year, I may state that there were 11 of them then, and that number is now reduced to 10. We know the very vigorous, and, indeed, the very successful efforts which were made by these hon. Gentlemen last year in the hot days of July and August, in the way of talking against this Bill. I think each of these hon. Friends of mine will be obliged to me for commencing at this early stage of the Session, as it will certainly afford them greater scope and a cooler season of the year for the expression of their views, and for their patriotic exertions. I have nothing more to say, and will conclude by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)

MR. O'SULLIVAN

Sir, I will appeal to you to say whether it is just, right, or in accordance with the usages of this House, that a Bill of this kind, dealing with the property of 16,000 or 18,000 persons in my country, and restricting the liberties and ancient privileges of the people, should be forced on so precipitately on what is really the first night of the Session? The Bill cannot yet have got into the hands of the persons chiefly interested in this question.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member asks me whether we are proceeding according to usage in discussing the second reading of this Bill. I am bound to say that the matter is properly before us.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

I rise to object to this Bill being read a second time. I do so, Sir, for many reasons. I rise to oppose it because it is contrary to the wishes of the large majority of the people of Ireland; secondly, because it attacks the rights and the property of a large number of the people of Ireland. I am prepared to maintain that this Bill, which is brought in for the professed object of lessening drunkenness in Ireland, will be the means of increasing it, and that it will not stop the sale of drink in Ireland on Sundays, but merely transfer the sale from a large number of small and industrious shopkeepers to the Munster houses and shebeen houses. It will increase drunkenness, because the article to be found in the shebeen houses will be of the very worst description, and there is no control over these houses as there is over regular licensed victuallers in Ireland. I will refer to a Return which has been obtained by the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Limerick, a gentleman who is well known in this House, the present Lord Emly. In the county which I represent (Limerick) there are 14 parishes in the diocese of Cashel and Emly in which Sunday closing is carried out at present, and has been for some time past. There is another large part of that county where the public-houses are opened on Sundays as they have always been. A Return was asked for by Lord Emly from the different petty session clerks of petty sessions districts of the archdiocese of Emly, where the public-houses are closed, and that part of the diocese of Limerick where the public-houses are open on Sundays. There is, first of all, Patrickswell, in the diocese of Limerick, with a population of 5,447, and the convictions for drunkenness there, according to this Return, were I in 286; while in the archdiocese of Hospital, with a population of 5,790, the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 156. In New Pallas, in the diocese of Cashel and Emly, where closing is adopted, the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 212, in a population of 10,520; while at the same time in the petty session district of Abbyfeale, with a population of 10,294, the convictions for drunkenness were I in 572, against 1 in 156 in Hospital, which is in the archdiocese where there is Sunday closing. The next is the petty session district of Munroe. The convictions there in the archdiocese of Cashel were 1 in 833, with a population of 6,665; while in Bruree, with a population of 4,426, the convictions wore only 1 in 1,475. Or, in other words, in places where there was Sunday closing the convictions for drunkenness were 1 in 833, and where the public-houses wore open the convictions were only I in 1,475, or a little more than one-half. In the next case I find in Ballyneety, with a population of 7,430, the convictions were only 1 in 391; while in Glin, with a similar population, there was only 1 conviction in 517. I need not go fuller into this, Sir. But the reason of these figures is very readily accounted for. If you prevent the respectable public-houses from opening on Sunday you drive the people who want to get refreshment and to get drunk into the shebeen houses, and you increase intoxication, because men who take home drink with them on Saturday night will give it to their wives and children, and they will be taught to drink, so that this Bill brought in for the purpose of lessening drunkenness will go far to increase it. I want to know what has been shown to this House to lead it to believe that this Bill will lessen intoxication? I believe there is not one man in this Assembly who would not vote for any measure which he thinks would have that effect. I believe this measure is an infringement of the liberties of the people, which will destroy the property of 16,000 or 18,000 of our fellow-countrymen without offering them any com- pensation in return, and I trust the Government will not allow so unfair and unjust a measure to pass even the second reading in this House. I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

MR. MURPHY

I beg leave to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick. I will not go into a discussion of the provisions of the Bill, but will remind hon. Members that this question has already been referred to a Select Committee of this House. If the whole question had not been gone into the last few years, and if that Select Committee had not unanimously reported against the provisions of this Bill—more than half of whom, when appointed, were in favour of Sunday closing—I think then there would be no farther occasion for taking any part in this discussion. But, as I understand the matter, it is this: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) has thrown out something like—I cannot call it an official—intimation, but something like an intimation, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended, if this Bill passes a second reading, to move that at least two portions of it, dealing with certain towns, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into and report whether or not these towns shall be exempted from the operation of the Bill. That is what I understood the hon. Member to say.

MR. RICHARD SMYTH

I merely quoted substantially, as well as I could remember, the language employed by the right hon. Gentleman on Friday evening.

MR. MURPHY

I think it is right that the House should be put into possession of what has already occurred in relation to this matter. In 1867 this Bill was brought into this House for the first time. It was allowed to be read a second time on the distinct understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee. That Select Committee was appointed, and evidence was taken before it, and, as I before observed, it was unanimously recommended that the principle of total Sunday closing should not be adopted, but that a modification of the hours of closing should be recommended. Upon the lines of that Report the legislation which took place so lately as 1872 was founded, and it was then believed that that was a final settlement of the question—at least, for some years to come. I will inform the House that all the Petitions which have been presented upon this subject—this great mass of so-called public opinion, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry has referred—these Petitions are. I believe, nothing more than the emanation of a systematised plan of action pursued by various associations, who, with ample funds at command, and with every possible means of procuring signatures, have been most industriously employed in getting them up. But looking at every Petition presented to this House in favour of this measure, what do I find? I find that they contain nothing in the world more than an expression of opinion on the part of the signatories that the closing of public-houses on Sundays would do that which every Member of this House is anxious to do—none more so than myself—repress intemperance. The question before the House is this—not what may be the belief of the signatories to those Petitions, but what is it as a matter of fact? Would the measure have the effect which those who have signed the Petitions say they believe it will have? Now, if I can show that so far from this belief being correct, it is directly, absolutely contrary to the evidence founded on official Returns from those who have the best opportunity of ascertaining the facts, I do say that this House ought not to give their undivided attention to that expression of opinion. The gentlemen who have signed do not know anything of the subject, but merely "believe" the case to be as set forth; and they express that opinion to the House. I will mention one fact. On the Select Committee which sat in 1868 the chief authorities in Dublin were examined—Mr. O'Ferrall, the Head Commissioner Police, the Chief Inspectors of the Constabulary, and others, and what was their opinion? They stated broadly and openly that so far from closing public-houses there being of any use it would absolutely intensify the evil; and they further stated that a great amount of drunkenness took place at the very hour when the public-houses were closed. Now, I mention that fact merely that this House may not be led away by the opinions of gentlemen, however sincere they may be, upon a question which is simply a matter of fact, and not of opinion. A very strange incident occurred in that evidence given before the Select Committee. Gentlemen in this House have often heard, and are perfectly aware, that in the archdiocese of Cashel the late Archbishop of that diocese succeeded in establishing a voluntary system of closing public-houses on Sunday. The Archbishop was examined before that Committee, and, in answer to a question, he stated that he came there prepared with statistics which he had got from his diocese, commencing with 1861, when the suppression of public-houses began, and ending in 1868—a period of seven years—and he said the effect of closing these houses had been to reduce the number of committals by one-half. But what, moreover, did he show? Because these figures are most useful by way of contrast and comparison with other places where the system of closing public-houses did not prevail. Why, in one instance, in one small town in the county of Tipperary, where the inhabitants were about 6,000 or 8,000, the number of committals for drunkenness on Sundays was exactly double the number in the city of Cork on Sundays with a population of 90,000 inhabitants. I merely mention that as a matter for inquiry, and to show that we must not take for granted what these numerous Petitioners have asserted, that the closing of public-houses on Sundays would diminish drunkenness. This House is, and always has been, anxious to effect social reforms; and we are all united in an earnest desire to see how best to check intemperance. I say, therefore, that if this Bill be read a second time, to refer the subject again to a Select Committee to inquire into and report. If the authors of this measure are so satisfied that public opinion is with them, if they can produce absolute striking proof that the closing of public-houses would effect their object, for Heaven's sake let them have the benefit of it, and not extend the measure to large towns. Let there be no fragment of an inquiry; let it be an open inquiry as in 1868; let those who are best qualified to give an opinion be summoned upon it, and let those who support these Petitions show the grounds of their belief. I feel it my duty, under existing circumstances, to oppose the second reading of this Bill. I do not believe it will effect the end desired. I do not believe that the parties for whose professed advantage it is sought to pass it require it. I presented a Petition to the House this evening signed by 14,000 working men and inhabitants of Cork against the Bill, and I simply ask—Is that any evidence of the great popular opinion in favour of it? I should rather think it was to the contrary. But, be that as it may, I protest against the passing of the measure. It will not effect the object; it will increase drunkenness, and intensify the evil while it professes to bring about good. It will despotically interfere with the habits and convenience of the large majority who are temperate, and will not prevent the intemperate from indulging in their courses, but rather stimulate them to an evasion of such a law, if passed. And, above all, there is another question mixed up with this. A large and influential trade has grown up under the sanction of the law; men have invested their capital largely in a legitimate trade, and if this Bill passes into law it will sweep away one-seventh of the entire profits of that trade. This House is asked to do, with respect to those who have invested their money, that which it has never yet done in any analogous case—namely, to deprive a body of men of the fruit of their investment and industry without any compensation whatever. The case of commissions in the Army were dealt with. Everybody knows that the sale of these commissions was absolutely illegal by Act of Parliament, yet a custom grew up, and what did this House do? It did not attempt to deprive the Army of that which had obtained a value, although it was illegal. In contradistinction to that, how is this question to be treated? No Committee is to be appointed on the subject, and these legal traders are to be deprived of their right. I do earnestly trust that the House will not come to that conclusion of forfeiting a man's property for what will be found to be an ideal and not a real good. Let men turn their attention to the repression of vice and intemperance by every means, if they can; let them look after the comfort of the people, find increasing re- creation for them on the Sunday, and let them not oppose the opening of public parks. A great many men in favour of this measure oppose the increase of recreation for the people, and all kinds of innocent enjoyment which would be the best possible means of repressing intemperance. I protest against this Bill on this principle—that it of necessity lays down the doctrine that the great mass of the people in Ireland are intemperate. There is no reason for the passage in the Bill that the majority of those who frequent public-houses are intemperate. Let us legislate not for a minority but for a majority, and do not let the vices of the few override the comfort and convenience of the many. If this measure should pass, I warn this House that it will give rise to a similar feeling to that which visited England when a similar Bill was passed almost sub silentio, and the people rose almost in rebellion, and the Bill had to be repealed within six months. I will not detain the House longer, but beg leave to say that I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I should like to say one or two words on this subject. This Bill—by-the-bye I have not seen it; I understand it is only printed to-day—this Bill is brought in for the purpose of soberising the people of Ireland. Now, let us see the way in which it professes to soberise the people of Ireland. It distinctly states this to the people of Ireland—"You—men, women, and children—drink as much whisky, beer, porter, everything intoxicating, as ever you like upon Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, but do not go into a public-house licensed by Her Majesty on Sunday, and you will be sober." That is the Bill; nobody can deny it. It allows everyone, old or young, to drink in his own house or in the house of his friend on Sunday, to bring his children to his friend's house, to bring his friend's children to his own house, and allows them to drink as much as they desire. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents their drinking where they like—drink in the field, drink sub Jove frigido. But do not drink on Sunday in places licensed by Her Majesty. I would remind hon. Members that the licences in Ireland are given with a certain degree of care for the people. A man is obliged to show that his house is comfortable, that he has good tables and good chairs, and is in a position to receive people comfortably on Sundays. The people who are licensed have to pay a large sum of money. Is faith to be broken with these traders? Sir, I say this Bill is an insult to the Queen herself. [Laughter.] I do say so, because the private houses of individuals are not licensed, and the liquor must be got somewhere. Where is it got? The hon. Member tells us where it is to be got. He says—"Go out on Saturday and get it. Fill your houses full of it. Drink it on Sundays, but do not drink in public-houses." That is the essence of the Bill. Now, I ask, is that a Bill likely to soberise the people of Ireland or any other country where it is adopted? It is not, Sir. For that reason, therefore, and I am most desirous of showing my anxiety for the sobriety of the people, I oppose the second reading of this Bill.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH

I have always been very doubtful how far this measure will soberise the people of Ireland, and I have expressed my views upon that question more than once. But I think that the Iron. and gallant Member who has last spoken has somewhat forgotten that it might be urged as an argument against his position that drinking in a field, sub Jove frigido, is not quite so tempting a thing as in a snug corner of a public house—[Major O'GORMAN: In summer.]—and I suspect that the argument of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) would be that if comfort were diminished, drinking also would diminish. It occurred to me, from the speeches of the last three hon. Members who have addressed us, that they scarcely appreciate the position which this question has reached. Now, the House will remember that last Session, when the hon. Member for Londonderry made a Motion on this subject, I stated, on behalf of the Government, our views with regard to it, and I made a counter proposal to limit the hours of opening public-houses on Sunday. That proposal was fully discussed, and. the House, by a large majority, expressed their preference for the Bill of the hon. Member for Londonderry. That, Sir, is one fact which the Government are bound to consider, and to which I hope the House will think they have shown proper deference. But still there is another fact. The hon. Member for the city of Cork (Mr. Murphy) spoke of what was likely to happen if a Bill were passed upon this subject sub silentio. Now, I doubt whether any question has engaged the attention of the House during the past three years upon which it could less be said that a Bill was likely to pass sub silentio. At any rate, I feel sure of this, that every person in Ireland has had by this time a full opportunity of knowing of the proposal for total Sunday closing of public-houses in Ireland, and of the probability that a measure would be passed upon the subject. Yet, Sir, I am bound to say that, although I do not attribute to the expressions of opinion which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry quite as much weight as he does, still I do attribute very great weight, indeed, to this, that there have been hardly any expressions of opinion on the other side. During the past autumn and winter — when certainly there must have appeared to people who take interest in this question every probability of the passing of a measure with regard to it—there have been, as far as I know, very few expressions of opinion on the subject at all, except those elicited by the advocates of Sunday closing. Well, looking at the matter from this point of view, I think the Government are justified in adhering to the decision at which they arrived last Session—that they would accept the judgment which was arrived at by the House on an occasion when they, to the best of their power, put their views of the matter fully before the House—that they would accept, I say, that judgment, and would allow this experiment to be tried. Then, Sir, I come to the point how far it is to be tried. Now, the House will remember that I stated last Session that in ray view, based upon reasons which appeared to me sufficient, it was not advisable that total Sunday closing should be adopted in the larger towns. I based that view upon information which had been supplied to me in the ordinary way by magistrates and police authorities in those towns. I think there is great reason to fear that if a Bill for the total closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sunday was passed, with reference, we will say, to the city of Dublin, the towns of Belfast, Limerick, Waterford, and Cork, one of these two things would happen—either there would be great and widespread evasion of the law, than which I can conceive nothing more detrimental to the cause of law and order in Ireland, or else, if the law were thoroughly enforced, there would be no little danger of riotous proceedings, which I am sure we should all deplore. Well, Sir, I based that opinion upon information which has been supplied to me. I never had an opportunity of fully stating that information to the House when I made the proposal which I felt it my duty to make last Session, that towns of above 10,000 population should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and that the hours of opening public-houses in those towns should be merely restricted by a period of two hours. I am bound to admit that that proposal was not very favourably received. On the one hand, it was objected to by the advocates of total Sunday closing; on the other hand, it was objected to by some of those who opposed it; and I felt myself in the difficulty of being obliged, as I conceived in the interest of law and government, to make a proposal which, as it seemed then, might not be favourably received by the House. I am anxious—and I am sure in this the hon. Member for Londonderry will agree with me—that this experiment, if tried, should be tried with safety—that we should not go farther than we think, on the best evidence we can obtain, we can safely go. I feel the importance of placing before the House and the country all that can be said upon the subject by those who have had any special experience in the adminstration of the present law. I do not think that that opportunity would be afforded to me merely in a speech on a second reading or in Committee on the Bill; and, therefore, the proposal I make to the hon. Member for Londonderry and the House is this—that the Bill should be referred, after the second reading, to a Select Committee, that it there should be thoroughly considered and sifted, and should be adapted to what are admitted to be the different circumstances of town and country; but that that Committee should not, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Cork, enter fully ab initio into the whole question of Sunday closing in Ireland—that we should take as settled the adoption of the principle of total Sunday closing, and that we should confine the evidence to be taken before that Committee to information bearing upon the applicability of the measure to those towns, the Dublin metropolitan police district, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford in which, I am bound to say, there is by far the most danger that, if applied, it would not give satisfaction. In making this suggestion I can assure the House that I have no wish to delay the progress of the Bill. The present, however, is a very early period of the Session, and the Committee may enter upon their inquiry with every prospect that their work would be concluded before Easter, and the Bill may then return to the House and pass its several stages during the present Session. I am as anxious as the hon. Member himself that a question which has been so long agitated should be now finally settled, and that the experiment which the House last Session decided to make should be entered upon under the most favourable conditions of success. For these reasons alone I have made the proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after it has passed a second reading.

MR. MELDON

said, he confessed ho had heard the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland with considerable satisfaction. The assurance he had given in the name of the Government that the question should be finally settled, and that they would not impede the progress of the Bill, was one that must give satisfaction to all their supporters. He must say he had been one of the most earnest and most strenuous supporters of the Bill, and one of them who had urged that they should give way in nothing, but that the Bill should be carried through in its entirety. They had no hesitation in saying, however, that if the Select Committee was appointed, the present Session would see them in possession of the Bill in its entirety. There were one or two points of view from which they might look on the proposed Select Committee. In the first place, from the point of view, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet, that it would be impossible to work out the Bill as it was at present framed; the second was the way in which the Bill might be made most useful and most beneficial for those who wished for it. He was per- fectly willing to take an inquiry on this subject from either of these points of view, as he was confident they could, upon an inquiry whether such a Bill was wanted in the large towns or not, produce the strongest and most overwhelming evidence that it was most wanted in the large towns, and particularly in the city of Dublin. Were those places left out of the Bill, there would immediately be an outcry, and especially would there be one in Dublin, as soon as it was known that it was to be made a drinking place into which all those who desired drink might drift in on Sundays from Rathmines, Kingstown, and other townships near Dublin. Speaking of Dublin alone, it would be horrible to contemplate such a state of things. It might be, however, that there were reasons that would make it essential and necessary that Dublin and those large towns should be excluded; but if there were, he thought it most important that they should be laid before the House and before the Committee, and that it should be demonstrated that the passing of the Bill would seriously prejudice public interests or public convenience. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass, and especially that, when passed, it should be a success; and he certainly said, for himself, he was most anxious that the Committee's proposition that had been been made should be accepted in that House that night, and he trusted the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Smyth) would see his way to accept it.

MR. COLLINS

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Member for the county Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who had taken an active part in the promotion of this measure; and when he found that a Gentleman whose experience on this subject induced him to accept as fair and reasonable the proposition that had been stated to the House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he confessed it seemed to him to be unnecessary for himself, who up to this time had taken a view of the question which was the opposite to that of the hon. Member, to discuss the matter further. He should not have spoken on the present occasion, but for an observation that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He altogether concurred in the advisability of a Select Committee to deal with this subject; but ho should greatly regret that the scope of that inquiry should be strictly limited to the effect the Bill might have on the large Irish towns to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Those five large corporate towns—Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, Cork, and Waterford—were, of course, very proper and suitable subjects of inquiry by a Select Committee; but there were other towns also to which he would ask the consideration of the Chief Secretary similarly circumstanced with those he had named, but which he had omitted from consideration by the Select Committee. He did not desire to raise points of discussion, but would appeal to the Chief Secretary to extend the scope of the inquiry, and not to limit it too strictly to the towns he had named. He feared much that if it was limited too strictly there would be great dissatisfaction among the inhabitants of considerable towns which would be injuriously affected by the Bill. He could only say that if the inquiry was to be so strictly limited in that way he should have no alternative but to oppose any proposition of the kind.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, that though ho thought the Bill ought to be allowed to pass through the House in the ordinary way; still, as he understood its supporters were prepared to accept the recommendation that had been given them from the Treasury Bench, he should not oppose it. He thought, however, they should clearly understand what they were about. The statement of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins) showed the difficulty they would drift into if the terms of reference were not made clear. The hon. Member was the worthy Representative of one of the smallest constituencies in the Kingdom, and wanted the Bill to be so framed that persons might go before the Committee and give reasons why very small towns should be exempted from it. It appeared to him that the lines on which this great question was to be settled were perfectly well understood not only in that House, but out of it; but if they did not lay down those lines, they might be re-opening the whole question before the Select Committee, and the question might be treated in a very unsatisfactory way. He was not quite able to understand the extent of the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They knew that last Session the right hon. Baronet had great tenderness of heart for cities of 10,000 population and upwards; but in the case of Londonderry the gift had not been received with gratitude—the citizens there saying they were much obliged, but would rather not have it. Within the last few weeks the gift of being exempted from the Bill had been repudiated a ta large meeting of the inhabitants. He was bound to mention that, in view of the extraordinary statement that there was no evidence as to the state of public opinion on the main question. That House had hardly risen at the close of last Session when there was a large meeting of publicans in Dublin, who took heart of grace and subscribed 12,000 to set public opinion going on the question, and enable the public to state their grievances against the Bill, and take measures for defending their rights and privileges, which were supposed by some persons in that House to be connected with the unlimited opening of public-houses. He had looked to the newspapers in Ireland for the results of that £2,000 subscription, but from what he could see there had been no outcome from it in the shape of public meetings and resolutions passed at them, and they might take it that, after asking for the delay of another Session to test the reality of public feeling in Ireland, the opponents of this measure had not been able to carry any expression of public opinion in their favour. He should have been well content that this great question as to the extent of Sunday closing should be decided by the House, instead of being referred to a Select Committee. Almost every Member of the House had voted either for or against the Bill on former occasions, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a satisfactory and impartial Committee. The whole point was contained in this one question—Were there not overwhelming reasons why, if they determined to close in the counties, they should not also close in the towns?

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

observed that, as on most other subjects, much might be said in favour of the Bill, and much also against it. The subject had been so much debated, however, that he did not think they wanted any long discussion on it. Now the more so, as he thought that if there was one subject on which more than another there was a preponderating body of evidence in Ireland, it was on this very question. He did not say public opinion was unanimous on the question in Ireland; but there was a preponderance of opinion in favour of the Bill. In proof of that he might mention that in the county he represented, he meant in the diocese of Ferns, public-houses had been closed on Sunday for a long time by Episcopal authority—the authority of the Catholic Bishop of Ferns, but with the full consent and approval of the people of all denominations. That was strong evidence in favour of the Bill from one of the largest counties in Ireland. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins), for extending the scope of the inquiry of the Committee, he thought it would be better not to do so; because, if the Committee were allowed a great scope, it would occupy a long time, and there would be no satisfactory result. It was quite enough to take some of the large towns as typical of the rest. He hoped the Committee would be able to come to a practicable conclusion within a reasonable time.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he hoped the House would appreciate the indisposition of the supporters of the Bill to enter into any lengthened discussion just now, and that their abstention would not be quoted against them hereafter. They took it that the discussion was virtually concluded by the proposition now before the House; but it was indispensable for the character of the Government and the success of the measure, that they should understand exactly the terms of the reference. They were, first, that the Bill was accepted in principle; secondly, that the inquiry was only as to the five large towns of Ireland; and, thirdly, how and when to apply total Sunday closing in those towns in such a manner as to lead to a successful issue. He hoped it would not be taken to be a subject of inquiry whether those five towns were to be excluded in tote from the operation of the Bill; for, as the hon. Member for Londonderry City (Mr. Charles Lewis) had shown, it would not be deemed a benefit to some of the cities proposed to be excluded. They could not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) into the general discus- sion of the merits of the Bill; but as statistics had been quoted on the authority of Lord Emly, he would observe that there was nothing more misleading than imperfect statistics. The House had not been told by the hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) that those statistics referred to only two months of the year 1874, and to two months of the year 1876; and with regard to the two parishes of Hospital and New Pallas, he might say that they were famous for the riots of the Three Year-Old and the Four-Year-Old, factions that had given plenty of employment to Her Majesty's justices, and also to the ecclesiastical authorities. No two more combative parishes could have been selected, and as for Lord Emly's statistics, his brother Poor Law Guardians evinced their appreciation of them by carrying a Petition in favour of the Bill, though not unanimously. Reference had been made to the probability of rioting in Ireland consequent upon the passing of this Bill; but he thought the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford was altogether wrong in endeavouring to make the House suppose that there would be rioting in Ireland in order that the people might enjoy the ancient privilege of getting drunk.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I rise to Order, Sir. I never said anything of the sort. I detest drunkenness as much as the hon. Member does.

MR. SULLIVAN

begged the hon. and gallant Member's pardon if he had at all misunderstood him. As to all these prophecies about rioting put forward to alarm the House, no doubt they were not slow in rioting in Ireland occasionally; but he proudly affirmed that he never knew the Irish people break into riot for the sake of drink. Riots of that character had taken place in other parts of the Empire—there had been disturbances in England a few years ago when early closing in the week days was enforced. But once again he proudly claimed that no one could point to an instance in which tumult or disorder had resulted from applying restrictions to drinking in Ireland.

MR. GOULDING

observed that the clergy of all denominations had asked for the Bill, and a majority of the work- ing men were in favour of it; and if the large cities were to be exempted from it, they would be made the receptacle of all who wished to indulge in drink.

MR. RICHARD SMYTH

regarded the proposals as being made in good faith, and he was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet was anxious to have a Bill carried through the House during the present Session. He was confident that he might rely on the assurance of the Chief Secretary that the scope of the instructions to the Committee would not be enlarged under any pressure whatever. He thought that, all things considered, they had reason to be in a measure satisfied with the proposal from the Treasury Bench; and he hoped the Committee would make such a Report to the House as would not only enable Her Majesty's Government to fulfil their duties and keep the peace in Ireland, but give satisfaction to the supporters of the Bill. With these observations he begged to recommend all his hon. Friends who had interested themselves in this measure to accept the proposals of the Government.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 23: Majority 171.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they do take Evidence as to the applicability of the measure to the Dublin Metropolitan Police District, the town of Belfast, and the cities of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford.

And, on February 16, Committee nominated as follows:—Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Mr. LAW, Mr. BRUEN, Mr. MELDON. Mr. JOHNSTONE, Mr. SMYTH, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Lord CHARLES BERESFORD, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, Mr. MARTEN, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. SULLIVAN, and Colonel COLE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

And, on February 23, Mr. ION HAMILTON and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY added.