§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Select Committee appointed at the instance of the Government, to whom the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill was referred, have reported in its favour, the Government are prepared to take the necessary steps for carrying the Bill through its remaining stages during the present Session of Parliament?
§ MR. M. BROOKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been directed to the changes in the form and essence of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, made by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred; if he is aware that Notice has been given to move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, and especially the alteration in the Preamble of the Bill, not being warranted by the powers entrusted by this House to that Committee, the Bill be re-committed to the Select Committee, in order that they may confine their Amendments within the powers entrusted to them by this House; and, if under these circumstances the Government will afford facilities to the Select Committee for re-considering the said Bill?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThe Government are well aware of the interest with which this Bill is regarded by Gentlemen connected with Ireland, representing various interests in that country, and sitting in different parts of this House; and having regard to all that has passed with regard to this measure, it would be a matter of 1765 great satisfaction to the Government if they could see their way to its being disposed of in the present Session of Parliament; and, so far as it may be in our power, we should all be glad to assist in bringing about that result. But I must take this opportunity of reminding the House of the position in which we stand. We are now far advanced in the Session. If I were to say that we probably have not more than two months of the Session left, I dare say I should hear a murmur at my even mentioning so long a time; but we are far advanced in the Session, and it cannot be denied that the ordinary Business of the Session is somewhat in arrear. Now with regard to the Business of the Session I must remind the House—without wishing to make anything in the nature of a complaint, which I have no right whatever to do—that in the present Session a much longer time than usual has been spent in the discussion of Business which in most Sessions with which we have been acquainted has been got through with greater rapidity. Bills—and some of them annual Bills—have been discussed much more fully than is usual, and many of the Votes in Supply have also given occasion for much fuller discussion than we have ever known. Nobody can dispute the perfect right of Members of this House to discuss these matters; but the effect of their doing so to the extent to which it has been done in the present Session is to place us at the present moment in a position of some anxiety as to the time within which we can properly get through the necessary Business of Parliament. I can hardly say at this moment, therefore, how far we shall be able to afford days for Business which does not properly belong to the Government measures. We shall have, of course, to get through with Supply. We have certain Bills which have been brought in by the Government, and which are tolerably advanced, but still which must be pressed on if they are to be considered by the other House before the conclusion of the Session; and I am still unable to say how far it may be in our power to dispose of Government nights for the discussion of measures brought in by hon. Gentlemen who are not Members of the Government. I look at the position of this particular Bill, and I see, in the first place, that it has gone through a 1766 Committee, but it has come down in an altered shape. It has come down with alterations which, I believe, were carried in the Committee by majorities, and some portions of which I believe were carried against the advice of Members of the Government who were parties to that Committee; and I see that Notices have been given of Amendments on the Bill in Committee, and no less than five Members have given Notice of objections to be raised on the Motion being made that you, Sir, leave the Chair. The hon. Member for Dublin has just called attention to one important question which is to be raised when the Bill is proposed to be again taken in Committee; and without expressing—for I am not able to express—any opinion upon the question which the hon. Gentleman raises as to the propriety of the Amendments that were made, I think it is obvious that the Bill will lead to considerable discussion. Well, that being the case, I must at the present time ask the hon. Member to excuse me giving a definite answer to the Question which ho has put. I am, as I said, anxious to do anything I possibly can to facilitate the discussion of this Bill; and if we should have the assistance of the House generally in getting on with the Business which yet remains before us, we shall be better able to meet the wishes which we know are widely entertained on both sides of the House with regard to this Bill; but the matter really does not entirely rest with ourselves. It is not from any unwillingness on the part of the Government to allow the proper discussion of the Bill; but we feel ourselves so very much in the hands of hon. Members with regard to the transaction of the necessary Business of the Session, that I do not like at the present moment to take upon myself the responsibility of making a promise which, from no fault of our own, we might hereafter find it difficult to fulfil.
§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHI would ask the indulgence of the House while I make a statement, in consequence of the exceedingly unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall put myself formally in Order by concluding with a Motion. I submit to the House that it is altogether too late for the Government to assume a passive attitude, and to manifest a spirit which is practically one of utter indifference to the fate of 1767 this Bill during the present Session. ["Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERBy the Rules of the House the hon. Member is not at liberty to discuss the Bill upon the Question now before it.
§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHI bow to your decision, Sir, and shall confine myself to the question of procedure. I shall not go back on previous Sessions; but I must ask the House to consider what was done immediately after the meeting of Parliament in the present year. I moved the second reading of this Bill on the 12th of February—the Government having previously opposed the principle of the Bill most strenuously, and taken the most emphatic way of expressing their hostility. ["No, no!"] Well, the Lords of the Treasury were the Tellers in a division on this question, and I do not know that the Government can resort to a more emphatic expression of opinion than by such a course as that. In this Session the Government changed their position, and supported the second reading on a certain condition, which was that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and that certain special questions should be referred to that Committee—namely, the applicability of the Bill to five large cities and towns in Ireland. The general principle of the Bill being conceded by the Government, as undoubtedly their action in the division put beyond a doubt, the promoters of the Bill assented to the proposal of the Government; and I felt that the friends of the measure had ceased to ask the Government to follow them, and that they then became the followers of the Government, because the Government had propounded a definite and positive policy of their own, for which they made themselves responsible. The idea of a Select Committee did not originate with us, but with the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Ho made this proposal, and we merely acceded to it. I have a right to ask, therefore, was that proposal on the part of the Government a friendly or was it a hostile proposition? I went into the Select Committee determined to abide by its decision; and I say now openly in the presence of the right hon. Baronet and the House that he knew that was my resolution long before the decision of the Committee was given, and at a time when I believed that the decision would 1768 be contrary to my own views and opinions. Inasmuch as those who previously acted with me went into that Committee in good faith, I think I have a right to ask the Government as far as is in their power—and they have it in their power—to carry out the decision of the Committee. No doubt I was very simple in believing that a Select Committee was to be treated as a sort of tribunal to give judgment on the question referred to it. I find now that, instead of being regarded by the Government as a tribunal in any sense, it has been used to act as a break on the wheels and to stop the train altogether. The Report was made on the 10th May. Why did the Government take away three months from the chances of the measure? What right had they to interpose on the 12th February, so that through the whole of the next three precious months we could not press it through the House? The Bill has many Friends on both sides of the House, and I think the experience of last year will justify me in the statement that if I had had those three months at my disposal, I should have made way in passing the Bill through several of its stages. ["No, no!"] Well, no one can speak with certainty of anything likely to occur in the House of Commons. This time last year, at a very late period of the Session, I got 15 Members to make way for this Bill. Now, I may ask this question—Did the Government recommend the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose merely of registering a foregone conclusion of their own, because it seems to me that it does not make the slightest difference as regards the duty of the Government whether the Committee reported in favour of the opinions of the Government or in favour of those who supported the original measure. If the Government recommended the Committee merely to register their own opinions, it may be statesmanship; but with every-day people in the outer world it would be designated by a very different name. I submit that this is not a question between the Government and a private Member. The House of Commons by adopting the principle of the Bill by a majority last year, took it out of the hands of private Members, and the Government, by its action this Session, took it out of the hands of the House of Commons, and the Government has now to 1769 reckon, not with those whose names are on the back of the Bill, but with the House of Commons itself. It is gone entirely beyond being the Bill of a private Member, and I think it is not competent—I use the word with reference to the wisdom and prudence involved—it is not competent now for the Government to wash their hands of the whole thing, to turn upon me, and to say" We have taken three months from you. The whole future is before you. As for us, we discharge ourselves of our responsibility for the measure." I ask the House whether that is the position the Government is entitled to take? I understand and believe—for I have it on the best authority—that the Irish Conservative Members, almost in a body, have gone the length of imploring the Government to take up and settle this question; and I understand that those Gentlemen from Ireland who are the supporters of the Government in this House have been unceremoniously sent about their business, and practically told not to interfere. I should have thought they might have had influence with the Government; but, unfortunately, there is this flaw in their case, that they are Irishmen as well as Conservatives. I must apologize to the House for having interposed so long; but I have only to add that whatever respect I have for the Gentlemen who occupy the Treasury benches, I with still greater confidence make my appeal from them to the justice and generosity of the House of Commons itself. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Richard Smyth.)
MR. GLADSTONEI am very reluctant to speak on one of these Motions which tend to delay the regular Business, but I am desirous to say a very few words, and I wish to say them early because, while I would make a strong appeal to my right lion. Friend opposite and the Government, I am still able to bear testimony to the difficulties under which he labours. These are not difficulties merely put forward for the sake of making an excuse or of fencing with the question. They are real; and all those who have been closely concerned in carrying on the Business of this House, although they could not be at all surprised at a small 1770 degree of impatience on the part of my hon. Friend who is so devoted to this measure, yet they know likewise that it is not an easy matter for a Government to balance together, especially at a certain period of the Session, the various considerations which determine their duty in the choice of this or that particular measure to be submitted to the House. We are undoubtedly, however, approaching that period of the Session when the power of the Government over the time of the House will be increased. I do think that there are some special considerations which I hope will lead my right hon. Friend and the Government to consider this question as a special one; and I may mention them without any reproach, although they are directly connected with the conduct of the Government itself. This is a very peculiar measure in respect to its representing a very extraordinary union of opinion and sentiment in Ireland; but I will not dwell upon considerations which will occur to the mind of every man as giving very great force to the plea that on account of that union of sentiment we should view favourably the demand that was made for the progress of this measure. Now, what is the demand made of my right hon. Friend? As far as I understand, my hon. Friend (Mr. Smyth) is himself willing to use every exertion that he can use, and all the time that as a private Member, favoured in some respects by such large support from various quarters he can procure, he is most willing to exert himself in procuring. Therefore, he does not endeavour to throw the whole difficulty of pushing forward this measure upon the Government; but my hon. Friend knows quite well that his resources in that respect are essentially limited resources; and where there is a keen opposition to a Bill, even though it be an opposition within a very narrow circle, the Members of the Government know perfectly well that the vigour and persistence of that opposition very much depends upon their knowing or not knowing that the promoters of the Bill have but limited resources at their command. Now, what occurs to me is this. This is one of the cases in which the Government has seen cause to change its course, and I do not think they are open to any reproach whatever for having thought so, or for having opposed this Bill at the outset if 1771 they thought, as they did, that it involved questions of difficulty connected with the peace of Ireland and with the tranquillity of the great towns; but, as a matter of fact, having offered it a strenuous opposition in the first instance, they must see that they gave a much greater importance and weight to the general opposition to the Bill than it could possibly have acquired unless they had themselves shared in it. Now, my recollection of former practice is that where a Government has seen cause to alter its course in such a manner upon a particular Bill, and when they themselves, by taking a marked share in the proceedings upon the Bill, have stamped it as a measure of very great importance, it no longer remains to them to be neutral parties about that Bill. If they do not persist in their opposition, but arrive at the conclusion that it is better upon the whole that the Bill should be passed and the experiment tried; if, even further than that, they indicate and exorcise an influence upon the course of proceedings with respect to the Bill, and if the effect of their conduct is to deprive my hon. Friend behind me of the disposal of the principal portion of the Session during which he might in all likelihood have pushed his Bill forward to a successful issue, and to bring him to the latter part of Juno before ho is in a position to attempt it—what I wish to press upon my right hon. Friend opposite is, that the claim which thus arises is a claim of a very special character; and I am inclined to believe that if he does so regard it, and is willing to make an addition from his own larger resources to the smaller means of my hon. Friend, then in all probability there will be no undue attempt to obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House. I am bound to say that I think Her Majesty's Government are not bound to regard the decision of the Committee as a final decision upon any serious matters with regard to which they differ from the Committee. If they think fit to raise and submit for the judgment of the House questions upon which the Committee did not agree with them, it does not appear to me that they are acting in any degree beyond the fair exercise of their discretion. Still, I think even that again strengthens their obligation, if I may presume to say so, to prevent the renewed failure of this Bill after those many failures that have oc- 1772 curred through want of time. I venture to commend these considerations to the minds of my right hon. Friend and the Government, with the hope that the result will be such as will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANwished to state that he had not been sent to that House to represent either Whigs or Tories, but to represent the people. He was sent there, perhaps, by the largest majority that ever returned any man in Ireland, and he was determined to oppose the Bill in every way in which the Forms of the House would permit, because it was a measure which interfered with the rights and liberties of the working classes in Ireland.
§ MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in discussing on the Motion before the House the merits of the Bill.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, as the hon. Member for Londonderry had discussed the merits of the Bill, he did not think he was out of Order in doing the same. Still, he would bow to the Speaker's decision. He would like to add that the object of the hon. Member for Londonderry in moving the Adjournment of the House was not to adjourn the House, but to elicit an opinion in favour of the Bill, and to force the House into a false position on its merits. The House had before decided on the Bill, and ho (Mr. O'Sullivan) could assure the House that a greater delusion was never brought before it than to attempt to make it appear that the people of Ireland were in favour of it.
DR. CAMERONsaid, the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Bill had been altered in Committee was not strictly correct. The point was whether the Bill should extend to certain large towns. As it went into the Committee it extended to all those towns which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished should be excluded from its operation. In other words, the Government wished to modify the Bill from the shape in which it had passed the House on the second reading, while the Committee resolved upon retaining it in the form in which it had passed the House. Might not the present difficulty be met by the Government fixing a Saturday for the consideration of the Bill? ["No, no"] He fully sympathized with the hon. Gentlemen who 1773 cried " No, no;" but if they sat as long on the Committee as he did, they would entertain a different opinion.
§ MR. M. BROOKSwished, as a Member of the Committee, to point out that the Bill in its present shape was not at all the same measure which was referred to them by the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in entering into a discussion of that question.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI beg to make an appeal to the House to allow us to get on with our Business. A good deal has been said about the Bill before us which, under other circumstances, might have been worthy of consideration; but I think it will be admitted that the real difficulty which lies in the way of our acceding to the request now made is want of time. Hon. Members cannot fail to see this, and to remark that every half-hour unnecessarily spent over fruitless discussion will inevitably tend to increase that difficulty. With reference to the remark that has fallen from the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), allow me to explain that when I referred to the changes made in the Bill, I did not so much refer to these changes as showing why the Bill should not be allowed to proceed, as to the very considerable time that would be occupied in getting the Bill through Committee in consequence of those changes. I admit there is a desire on the part of a majority of the Members of this House to discuss this Bill. Well, if the Government promise to do everything they can, there ought, I think, to be a similar desire manifested on the part of hon. Members. But the prospect, as I have admitted, is not encouraging, and every unnecessary consumption of time makes it more hopeless. I find by reference to the Orders that on Wednesday, the 27th of June, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has a Bill which stands first upon the list. Perhaps he may desire to assist the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. Of course, I do not know what may be the feeling of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle on this matter; but if he and the hon. Member for Londonderry would communicate with each other, they might strike out something between them. All I now ask the House to do is to allow us to go on with 1774 our Business. Only a few weeks remain to us, and it would be well for us to proceed with what we have to do in as businesslike a fashion as possible.
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTI, for one, Sir, do not want to waste the time of the House, yet I feel I must offer a single remark or two on this question. I do not think, from the tone of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, that it is quite fair to charge him with being absolutely inaccessible to reason on this question. Perhaps he is willing to go even further. The Bill, I believe, only consists of six clauses, and it strikes me that so short a Bill, especially as it has the support of so large a majority, ought to be very soon disposed of. That majority would even be largely increased if the right hon. Gentleman would only give the Bill his support, and ask the House to unite with the Government in getting it carried. There are, it is true, a few Members from Ireland who are opposed to the measure; but even they, when they see the House is so unmistakeably in its favour, and that no hope of permanent obstruction to its progress need be entertained, would at once withdraw that obstruction. This is a question between the Government and the people of Ireland. As I understand it, the feeling in Ireland is unanimous in favour of the Bill. Only this morning I saw an extract from a Dublin newspaper—the only newspaper which has opposed this Bill—and I find that it has given up its opposition. It even goes further, and says that after the evidence given before the Select Committee, and the general opinion expressed in this House, the wisest course to adopt would be to pass the Bill at once. Seeing, then, that the Bill had received almost the unanimous support —
§ MR. A. MILLSrose to Order. Ho wished to ask the Speaker whether the right hon. Gentleman was not contravening the Rules of the House in discussing a measure which was not before it ?
§ MR. JOHN BRIGHTI was referring to that point merely as an argument addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I thought that he, as Leader of 1775 the House and the Government, could not be insensible to the force of a consideration urged on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish people. But I do not wish to go further in that direction. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman would consult the character of his Government, the reputation—shall I call it ?—of Parliament in Ireland, and the interests of the Irish nation in general, if he would give not an indifferent, but a hearty and cordial support to this measure. His Government is much more feeble than I take it to be if he cannot find some means by which this Bill may be disposed of this Session.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, it was perfectly well known to Members that the second reading of the Bill was carried by a majority of 171 to 23. The Select Committee was appointed to consider the applicability of the measure to some large towns, and by a majority of 9 to 7 the views of the Government were overborne.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was not competent for the hon. Gentleman to enter into a discussion of the proceedings in the Committee on the present Motion.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he wished to testify to the strong current of opinion on the subject in the part of Ireland which he represented; and he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that there was not only a reluctance on the part of the Government to give facilities for the carrying out of the measure, but that a word of sympathy or support had never been uttered. If the Government had promised to make a measure of the question next Session, he would have been content; but they had remained silent except on the non possums theory, which was very unsatisfactory to most of their supporters in the North of Ireland.
MR. SULLIVANwished to point out that if the remarks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just made were a premium upon obstruction, his hint would not be lost upon those 13 or 14 Irishmen who were against the Bill. He had said that if hon. Gentlemen would facilitate the Business of the House, they would consider how far they could assist in the passing of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had found that two Members could obstruct the Business again and again. Minorities had appeared upon this Bill of from 1776 5 to 14, and it sometimes suited the policy of the Government to believe that these small minorities represented the people of Ireland. The Government were underrating the activity of the 13 who were against Sunday closing. They would be heard on the Prisons Bill and on many other Bills, with the understanding that if they were sufficiently obstructive, no facilities would be given for the passing of the Sunday Closing Bill. The reputation of the Government was at stake on this question. Were they going to force Sunday drinking upon the people for another year ? He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-consider his decision; because if not, the minority of Irish Members against the Bill would take care that what he had suggested should be carried out.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he rose with some fear, because after what had happened he supposed that he, too, would soon be called to Order. He would, however, do his best to keep in Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very kindly and courteously recommended him to make some confidential communication to the Irish Members for the purpose of facilitating the passing of this Bill. Now, he would not hold a private communication with anybody outside that House. The right hon. Gentleman asked him whether he would give up his day for the discussion of the Permissive Bill in order to further the discussion on the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland. Well, he would. [Cheers.] Gentlemen were cheering much too soon. He was determined to have his pound of flesh. He would only give up his day on condition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the Irish Closing Bill a Government measure, and would use his influence to get it carried to the House of Lords in time for its full discussion. That, he thought, was a fair offer, and if the Government did not accept it, why then the House would have its own opinion about them. The question before them was not so much the Adjournment of the House, as whether this Bill was to be got through Parliament this Session or not, and whether, if it did not, Ireland was to be left for another year to endure all the horrors of the Sunday drink traffic. It was said that hon. Members from Ireland were unanimous 1777 on this subject. Well, he heard of united Irishmen, but he never heard of unanimous Irishmen. He believed the Bill was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and a few Irish Members only, whom he would call the Blue Book Brigade, inasmuch as they read Blue Books by the hour because they had no arguments to urge in support of their case. Those hon. Members with lip service declared their adhesion to Home Rule; but when their country was united on a great question they endeavoured, with the aid of the " Saxon oppressor," to fasten an evil system upon Ireland. All the lion. Gentlemen returned by Irish constituencies at bye elections during the past year had been in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill. He thought the House ought to take this measure into its own hands and endeavour to get it passed. Over and over again they had been told that if Ireland would only come to Parliament and demand a general measure which that country wanted, that measure would be granted. Could there be a stronger case than the present ? Was it wise for them to ride off on a mere plea of delay? Were it a Coercion Bill it would be passed without trouble.
§ MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Baronet that he was out of Order in making these observations.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was extremely sorry he had got out of Order. He had expected that he should. He did not mean to discuss the Bill, but only to urge upon the Government the necessity of taking it up. A majority of the Irish publicans themselves were in its favour. He could, in fact, conceive of nobody who was opposed to it except the English publicans.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNApointed out that both the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) were supporters of the Bill, and that they, at all events, would not throw any obstruction in its way. He believed the question of a Catholic University for Ireland was of more importance than this Bill, and if a day be set aside for any Irish measure, it should be for that object.
§ MR. MURPHYthought there was too much assumption in the statement that the unanimous feeling of the Irish people was in favour of the Bill. He himself 1778 represented one of the largest constituencies in Ireland, and he stated distinctly that the masses of the people for whose benefit the Bill was designed were opposed to it. He had as good a personal knowledge of the people of Ireland as the hon. Member, and he must say they were unanimously against the Bill. The appearance of a majority in its favour was owing to the organized exertions of a central committee which had ample funds at its command.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RICHARD SMYTHgave Notice that he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would afford him an early opportunity of moving—
That this House is of opinion that it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to allow the question of the sale on Sunday of intoxicating liquors in Ireland to remain unsettled for another year.