§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1 (Extension of Acts prohibiting Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to the whole of Sunday).
§
Amendment again proposed,
At end of Clause, to add the words "in all places except the following (that is to say): within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin Metropolis, and within the cities of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and the town of Belfast, and within the said police district, and within the said cities and town, the said hours or times are hereby extended, and shall be as follows, that is to say, up to the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon, and after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening on Sunday."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAopposed the Amendment, because it created exemptions, and he held that all communities should be legislated for on the same principle. If this legislation were required at all, it was obviously much more requisite where there was a large population than in rural districts. The promoters of the Bill had, nevertheless, accepted the Amendment; but it destroyed the whole principle of the Bill. The Bill was a bad one in principle—the Amendment was worse. He was not prepared to run against the wishes of his Friends; but he certainly would, as far as he could, protest against the course taken. He, therefore, objected to the clause.
§ MR. SANDFORDexpressed his surprise that the Committee should have been invited to vote upon the Amendment, when nothing had been said either by the Attorney General for Ireland or the Chief Secretary in recommendation of it. He should like to know upon what grounds it was proposed to exempt those five towns from the Bill? for it seemed to him that if the legislation were needed at all, it was more requisite in the towns than in the rural districts.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, it was quite clear that the population of the towns in Ireland was not increasing, but rather diminishing; and yet the convictions for drunkenness showed that the vice was much on the increase. From his own experience, he could say that it was in the towns alone where drunkenness was prevalent, and where exceptional legislation, such as this, was needed.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERobserved that, even if the Amendment were adopted, he should not regard the Bill as a perfect one. It was proposed and accepted by way of compromise, and it should be remembered that in England the hours of closing were not uniform throughout the country.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that it did not at all follow because Members in charge of the Bill were prepared to accept Amendments, by doing which they hoped to secure its passing, that other Members were also to accept them. There was no reason for putting so quiet a town as Derry under the new regulations and omitting Belfast. He was of opinion that the influence exercised by certain societies against Members of the House of Commons ought to be withstood as destructive of their freedom and independence. He had been informed that it was intended, by a certain bigoted section, at the next General Election to endeavour to make the support of legislation of this kind a test question. That dictation, he hoped, would not be submitted to.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that the Amendment which was proposed did not emanate from the promoters of the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought that if the duty were thrown upon him of defending it, he could offer some stronger reasons for its acceptance than they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He had consented to accept this Amendment, in the first place, because the Government afforded them facilities for the passing of the Bill upon the condition that their Amendments were adopted; and, of course, the Committee would be aware that without such facilities from the Government it would be next to impossible for the Bill of a private Member to pass. In the next place, it was thought that it would not be inconsistent with the views of the supporters of the Bill to accept 624 those Amendments, for this reason—that in some of those cities, Dublin, Cork, and other places, there was a very divided public opinion upon the subject. He had always maintained that unless they had the public opinion of the country with them in a matter of this description, an Act of the kind proposed would not be likely to succeed. They maintained that throughout the rest of Ireland public opinion was in favour of the Bill. A great number of persons, and many of the supporters of the measure, believed that the great majority of the populations, even of those cities, were in favour of the Bill; but they could not deny that there was a considerable proportion of the population in Dublin and Cork, and he believed also in Waterford and Limerick, who held a different opinion; and the promoters of the Bill were satisfied upon that ground to accept the Government Amendment, and to allow the Bill to be tried in that portion of the country where they believed the vast majority of the population were in favour of it. As the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of excluding those towns, they had agreed to this, preferring to have their Bill carried with these Amendments rather than to lose it for the sake of those particular towns.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was not going to make any remark upon the fact of that Bill, with 23 Amendments, being brought on at that hour of the night. He wished to ask what was the object of excluding five large towns from the operation of the Bill? It was well-known that those who lived in the towns had the opportunity of drinking every day in the week; and, certainly, if there was any inconvenience at all it was in the country, where there was very little opportunity for entering a public-house. It was a well-known fact that many persons living six or seven miles from a small town never went into town except on a Sunday, and, consequently, to a public-house; and that was the day they wanted to close them up. He thought it was rather premature of the promoters to press that Bill on as they had been doing during the last fortnight. It was only just lately that the people of Ireland had begun to believe that the Bill would really pass. Until then, they had never believed that the Government would 625 allow such a coercion Bill to pass. He was now going to say a word as to the Petitions that had been received during the past week. He found that there had been presented to that House a total of 52 Petitions in favour of the Bill, and what were those Petitions made up of? Twenty-four were from religious houses in the North of Ireland.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland relating to the exemption of those five towns from the purposes of the Bill, and it would not be in Order for the hon. Member to go into any discussion as to the general objects of the Bill.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANwould submit to the Chairman's authority; but he could not see how his observations were not in Order, when he said that the Bill ought not to apply to any part of Ireland. Of course, if he confined himself simply to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all he could say was that it appeared to him to be a piece of cowardice on the part of the Government, because there could be only one or two objects in excepting those towns. They said—"We will make a certain ring, and you can come and drink inside that ring, but you cannot drink outside it." It looked rather like cowardice, because they knew very well that they were able to put down the people in the country and prevent them taking any amusement or refreshment; but they could not put down the people in the towns, because they were too numerous. It was well-known, from all the Returns that had been presented to that House, that there had been far less drunkenness in the country than in the cities. Well, the Chairman had thought that he ought not to go into the question of the Petitions presented during the past week; but he could not see how that was beside the question. He thought, however, that he would not be going outside the decision of the Chairman in dealing with the number of Petitions presented against the Bill. There were 103 Petitions presented against the Bill during the past week, and 102 were all from working men and women in the three Provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, and only one from Ulster. That showed clearly that the people of Ireland were against the Bill, particularly from three Provinces. Now, 626 a good deal had been said about the vote given by the Irish Members. It had been said that there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill, and it had also been stated by the Press—
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out that the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that he would speak, as well as he possibly could, against the Amendment, because he thought it unfair that it should be passed. He thought it unfair that one part of the country should be excluded from the Bill and another part included in its operation; and, therefore, with regard to the clause, he thought it right to say that it was a fallacy to think that popular feeling in Ireland was in favour of the Amendment. It was probable that there would be a majority of Members in favour of the Bill, but not the overwhelming majority which the supporters of the Bill would have them believe. He found that there would be for the Amendment the same as for the main division. There were 53 in favour of it, while there were 15 against, and 35 absent. It was well to see how these 53 were made up. He found that from Ulster alone there were 21 in favour of the Amendment.
§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked whether the hon. Member was not out of Order in quoting these figures?
THE CHAIRMANagain repeated that the question before Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNArose on the question of Order. He did not see that the hon. Member was really out of Order. There were five towns proposed to be exempted from the operations of the Bill, and a very large number of the Petitions to which his hon. Friend referred were from those towns; and, therefore, bore upon the question before the Committee.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought they must consider the main point of Order, and when the Chairman had given his decision it ought to be accepted.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked whether the hon. Member's observations would be in Order, supposing his Motion were one to report Progress?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was limited to the 627 exception of those particular towns, and he must point out to the hon. Member that in speaking to the Amendment he would only be in Order in speaking to circumstances relating to the exception. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that a Motion of the description to which he had referred gave a wider scope for argument; but, at the same time, he must point out that it was not a usual course to adopt. It would be difficult to conduct the proceedings of the Committee if, when an hon. Member had been ruled to be out of Order for speaking in a particular way, he should resort to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that he felt it very difficult to meet the Amendment fully without going into the merits of the Bill, and therefore he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Sullivan.)
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should be sorry to offer any remarks at that moment which would obstruct the passing of the Bill; but when he considered its importance, and when he knew that the Amendment struck at the main root of the Bill, he could not but think that to bring in a discussion at that hour of the night was very undesirable. It was a very important Amendment, and though he had not been very long in the House, yet he knew that an Amendment touching the vitality of a Bill had been brought forward at such an hour of the morning. Now, as they were on the question of reporting Progress, perhaps he should not be out of Order in bringing to the notice of the Committee a communication which had been sent out to the supporters of the Bill, asking them to be present on that occasion. The Notice ran in the following form—
Irish Sunday Closing Bill.—Dear Sir, it has been decided to proceed with the above Bill on Thursday night, at whatever hour it may be reached, and your attendance and support in Committee are requested.The Notice was signed in the names of the O'Conor Don, Mr. R. Smyth, Mr. Corry, Mr. Dease, and Mr. C. E. Lewis. He was one of those who did not care 628 one moment for Notices sent to hon. Members. He had, in a small way, endeavoured to throw out the Bill, and he should still continue to do so. But not only did he wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Memorandum which had been sent out to hon. Members, but he thought, also, that he should not be out of Order if he were to read a paragraph in a letter Which had appeared in a leading Radical journal that day—he meant The Times. It was signed "M.P.," and he supposed that meant Member of Parliament; but if it had been written by any Member of Parliament when that important discussion was going on, he considered it to be some what in the way of holding out to them a threat of a character which he did not at all like. The paragraph referred to proceedings which had taken place on the preceding Tuesday morning, and it said, talking about the men who were opposing the Bill—If those 20 Conservative noblemen who voted in the minority—he was one of those who voted in the minority and he was a Conservative; but he did not happen to be a nobleman—knew the great force they have given to the Home Rule Movement by their extravagant conduct on Monday last, they would, on this account, as well as on the ground of Parliamentary decency and dignity, look back upon the part they took with anything but comfort or pride.He could not say that he looked back to that Tuesday morning with any comfort. But if he could be a humble means in aiding to throw out that Bill, he thought he should have cause to look back upon that Tuesday morning with pride. He thought that when a measure of that kind was under discussion they, as Representatives of the people, should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon a particular measure before the House without gentlemen, whoever they might be, writing in that way, and holding out threats to them upon their conduct.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no doubt that that Bill was one of very considerable importance in itself, and that, therefore, the discussion in which they were engaged was one of importance. But he ventured to point out to the 629 Committee that there was something even of more importance than the merits of that particular Bill, and that was the manner in which the House of Commons was to carry on its Business. Now, they had claimed, and for a very long time they had thought they deserved, the reputation of being a very business-like Assembly; and with free rules, and with very little restraint upon the liberty of individual Members, they had been able to carry on, in a more or less business-like way, the affairs of the country. But of late, as hon. Members were perfectly well aware, difficulties had arisen, and great complaints had from time to time been made on account of the novel mode of resistance, and the extent to which that mode of resistance had been carried by minorities against the express wish of the majority. He was one of those who was always desirous to stand up for the rights of minorities, if possible; but, at the same time, there were limits, as everybody would acknowledge, beyond which those rights should not be carried. He thought that in the case of that Bill there was a very natural desire that it should be fairly discussed; there was a very natural desire amongst those who opposed it, and especially among those Irish Members who opposed it, when they found themselves in the minority in that House that they should have full and fair opportunities for stating their objections, for discussing them freely, and referring to proceedings that had taken place on a former occasion. He was not disposed to speak with anything like severity of the course that was taken, when the Bill last went into Committee, on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair, and the merits of the Bill being discussed, over again when the Bill had got into Committee. It was, perhaps, an unusal, but still not a very unfair, course to take on a Bill of such importance; but that course having been taken, and the opinion of the Committee having been fully expressed, and the Committee having apparently determined to go on with the Bill and consider it in its details and Amendments, he thought it was but fair that those Amendments should be considered, discussed, and decided upon. They did not think it was reasonable that the House should be asked to sit during extravagantly late hours; but, on the other hand, it was impossible 630 that they could have a free evening for everything; and he thought that after the discussions which had taken place the other day, it was time for them to settle whether the Amendment should or should not be adopted, and then Progress might fairly have been allowed to be reported, and the Bill taken up again on a later date. The discussion seemed to have been fairly opened upon the point raised by the Attorney General for Ireland. It was a very important point, because upon it the Government were to decide whether they would give a certain amount of support to the Bill or not; and he thought the Committee were ready and ripe for discussion upon that point. Well, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who took a strong opinion upon the Bill, and who, he must say, had argued with very great fairness and in a manner that commanded the interest of the House, was proceeding to argue against the Amendment upon grounds which he was perfectly competent to take. He had somewhat exceeded the bounds of argument which he was entitled to use, and was called to Order accordingly. He understood that the hon. Member was perfectly prepared to submit to the ruling of the Chairman, as it was necessary he should be, if they were to preserve any Order at all; and he did not think that anybody could complain of the hon. Member. But, then, what happened? The right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and who claimed to be an authority upon questions of Parliamentary Business, and who, at all events, had been placed on a Committee which had been appointed for the express purpose of considering Parliamentary procedure, deliberately got up and made a suggestion to the hon. Member that he might evade—for that was what it came to—the ruling of the Chairman, by moving to report Progress. Now, if there was one practice which was more detrimental to the order and dignity of the House than another, it was that very practice of reporting Progress, in order to enlarge a discussion which should be kept within narrow limits; and if they were to resort to proceedings of that sort, he said it would be absolutely impossible for Business in that House to be properly conducted. When an hon. Member was 631 excited, and felt himself restrained upon one question or upon another, and endeavoured by that means to escape from the limit laid upon him, they made some allowance for him; but, really, for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and make the suggestion that an hon. Member should move to report Progress, was subversive of all Business. He earnestly hoped that the Motion for Progress would be withdrawn, and that they might be allowed to devote their attention to the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, after which he thought it would be reasonable to report Progress.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the real question of dispute with respect to this Bill was what was the real feeling of the people of Ireland upon this question?—and, considering it of the highest importance that that should be stated to the House, he had asked a Question as to whether the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) could not obtain an opportunity for stating the facts? It must be recollected that this Bill was in an extraordinarily favourable position considering that, being in the hands of a private Member, it was actually in Committee in the first week in April; the discussion, usually taken upon the second reading, was adjourned until the next stage, and then by accident the Bill slipped into Committee without any discussion at all. Now, the pith of the question was whether the people of Ireland were almost unanimously in favour of this Bill, as was alleged on the one side, or whether, as was said on the other, they had been aroused to action by the prospect of its becoming law, and were now actively petitioning against it. The hon. Member for the county of Limerick was analyzing the large number of Petitions which had come in during the present week when he was called to Order, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) desired that he should have an opportunity of completing his analysis. He had no intention whatever of suggesting obstruction, but only desired that the facts should be fairly placed before the Committee, and would advise the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) to withdraw his Motin to report Progress.
§ EARL PERCYwished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. 632 Knatchbull-Hugessen), who was a Member of the Committee sitting upstairs on Public Business—namely, whether, in his opinion, it was a proper course to discuss the opinion of the people of Ireland upon the whole scope of the Bill, at a time when the only real matter before the Committee was an Amendment on a particular clause?
§ MR. SHAWexpressed his disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not concluded his observations with the suggestion that the long Sitting of the House should justify Progress being reported on this Bill. This was an Amendment of great importance, which he, for one, scarcely felt able to discuss at so advanced an hour; and there were several reasons why Progress should be reported before the Committee divided on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. In the first place, they were told that the Amendment was a compromise. Well, he supposed all legislation of that House was a compromise, more or less. For some hours he had been trying to effect a compromise with regard to this Bill, and he feared the difficulty would only be increased if they went to a division on the Amendment. Before adopting this measure, its supporters and the Government ought to consider several great practical questions. For instance, it had been said that the Bill would be an evil, while others said it would be a good measure. The Government might endeavour to settle that question by ascertaining whether there was any good or evil in the Bill. If the Government should be unable to determine the matter, at any rate, the constituencies would, when the matter came before them two or three years hence. They had not yet decided the question by the expression of opinion, nor had the opinion of the House been declared upon it. Hon. Members had said to him that they hated the Bill themselves, but would vote for it, because it was supported by the majority of the Irish Members and of the people of Ireland. He maintained that it had the sanction, neither of the majority of the Members of the House, nor of the majority of the people of Ireland. The Bill would not work in Ireland. He hoped the Government, with a view of arriving at a peaceful settlement of this question, would allow Progress to be reported.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, as the supporters of the Bill had been so often taunted with the assertion that the opinion of the people of Ireland was against the measure, he would invite the Committee to consider the facts of the case. First, it was known that three-fourths of the Irish Representatives were in its favour.
§ MAJOR O'GORMANrose to Order. Was the hon. Member entitled to discuss this point on the Amendment before the Committee?
THE CHAIRMANexplained to the hon. and gallant Member that the question immediately before the Committee was not the Amendment, but the Motion to report Progress.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, public meetings on this question had been held all over Ireland, and there had been four to one in favour of the Bill. The magistracy, clergy, elected guardians, members of the town councils—all persons who knew the feelings of the people—were in its favour by overwhelming majorities. The majority of the Petitions were in favour of the Bill. [The hon. Member then referred to the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with during past Sessions and in the present one, especially to the long speeches delivered on Monday night by opponents.] With respect to the latter, he asked, were those speeches made for the purpose of convincing the House that the Bill was contrary to the wishes of the Irish people, or were they delivered with a view of defeating the Bill, as in previous years, for want of time? When the House had decided, by an overwhelming majority, larger than on former occasions, in favour of the principle of the Bill, was it fair to raise again the whole question as to whether this measure was opposed to the feelings of the people of Ireland? He hoped the majority in its favour would not allow the minority to override them. It was because the question whether a minority should override the majority had been raised, that the promoters of the Bill were obliged, at so late an hour, to ask the Committee to proceed with the measure.
§ MR. KNIGHTsaid, that as he was one of those Members who had sat up all night to oppose this measure, he would give, in a few words, his main ob- 634 jection to it. In the first place, he was very much opposed to over-legislation, and he thought that late Governments, backed by the House of Commons, had been much disposed during the last 10 or 15 years to fall into that error. He was for leaving people as much as possible to their own devices, and not for interfering with them unless they committed some real crime. Above all, he was opposed to inventing new crimes by Act of Parliament, and then punishing people for committing them. This was an imitation of the police governments of the Continent, which he held in abhorrence. The provisions of this Bill were distinctly of that nature. Then, he was opposed to all sumptuary laws. It was against the conditions of that personal freedom, which Englishmen so much prized, that they should be taught by Act of Parliament what to eat, what to drink, and wherewithal they should be clothed—and he objected to this Bill on that account also. He had a still stronger objection to the main principle of this Bill inasmuch as he had seen it tried and seen it signally fail. He recollected, not long ago—since he had been in Parliament—an Act having been passed, very much reducing the hours in which drink could be sold on Sundays in that Metropolis. He supported that measure, which passed with acclamation from both sides of the House. But it soon turned out that the lower classes of the Metropolis did not take the same view of the matter. They would not have their one holiday interfered with. Sunday riots of an alarming nature occurred, carriages were driven out of the Park, the windows of some of the leading promoters of the measure were broken, the police were obliged to be concentrated to endeavour to control the heavy mobs that assembled in the Parks and elsewhere; and the rest of the town, deserted by the police, had to keep the peace as best it might. He recollected having himself had to act as private policeman in the street he then lived in. The result was, that the police had orders not to carry out the new regulations, and that Parliament had to repeal the objectionable Act, nem. con. in a very few months after they had passed it. He was convinced that this measure would, if carried out, produce a similar state of things in Ireland. Hon. Members might present 635 Petitions signed by Peers, magistrates, ministers, and tradesmen, and all under their control; but they must remember that they had other and larger classes to deal with—the lowest classes—the swarms of men with sticks in their hands, that he had seen filling the streets of Irish towns on Sunday evening. If hon. Members believed that those masses of people would quietly consent to see the houses of refreshment to which they had been accustomed to resort shut up, without a murmur, they might depend upon it that they were reckoning without their host. If the Bill now before them became law, they might depend upon it that the lower classes in Ireland would deeply resent it, and the result would be—he would not say revolution—but a series of petty riots from one end of Ireland to the other, and Parliament would have to repeal the law as fast or faster than they made it. He had committed an error in supporting the somewhat similar measure he had alluded to for the Metropolis, and he was not going to fall into a similar error a second time. He was ready to sit up another night to oppose the Bill if necessary. He thought that the mistake of the present day was that of closing great debates at so early an hour as 12, or half-past 12 o'clock. When he came into Parliament, the debates went on into the morning, and the time was occupied in debating the measure before the House, instead of being passed in squabbling, as at present. He thought that the 12 o'clock Rule was the root of the evil.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if ever there had been a principle debated over and over again, it was the principle of this Bill. Both English and Scotch Members were anxious that the question which deeply concerned the Irish people should receive the full attention of the Committee, and, if possible, be settled this year, in accordance with what appeared to be the desire of the people of Ireland. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Committee had arrived at a point which might fairly be decided that night. It could hardly be said to affect the general principle, because it was a recommendation to the Government to accept certain terms, to which opponents of the Bill could hardly object, which terms exempted large towns from the 636 operation of the Bill. He had hoped the Committee would have been prepared to accept the appropriate and practical suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to decide whether or not the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland should be accepted, and then report Progress. After that the Committee would arrive at the conclusion that the Government and the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) were at one with regard to the further progress of the Bill. If the Motion for reporting Progress were withdrawn, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who was in possession of the House, would be heard with attention.
§ MR. MURPHYsaid, that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he was himself about to rise in order to suggest that his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) should withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. For his own part, he was content that the division should be taken on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. Although he had intended to rise for the purpose of asking his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, he was surprised at the turn which affairs had taken; the debate which had arisen out of that Motion had been prolonged even by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), amongst others. Although the hon. Member was anxious that the Business of the Committee should proceed, he had occupied some considerable time in entering into the merits of the Bill, with the object of proving that the people—at least a vast majority of them—were in favour of the measure. He had himself been charged with adopting the unusual course of entering into the merits of the Bill immediately after it had gone into Committee. The hon. Member having stated the circumstances which had prevented a discussion of the principle on the second reading, and which had led to the understanding that such a discussion should be taken on going into Committee, explained that the latter stage was unexpectedly reached, at a Wednesday Sitting, through the sudden collapse of four Orders of the Day. This Bill stood next, and it went into Committee at once, without the principle being discussed. These were the facts of the case, which justified him in raising 637 that discussion the other evening on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair; and he maintained that the new evidence which, in his opinion, went against the Bill, fully warranted him in discussing the merits of the measure on that occasion. He deemed it necessary thus to explain again his legitimate motives for the course he had taken, and the more so because, from the tenour of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. Gentleman would appear to have adopted the idea so persistently urged by the promoters of the Bill, that he (Mr. Murphy) was not justified in raising a discussion on the principle or merits of the Bill in Committee. No Member of the House was more opposed than he was to the adoption of any factious or unnecessary proceeding, and he trusted that he would always act, not alone in accordance with the rules of debate, but with that deference to the instinct and unwritten law of the House which should also be a guide to every hon. Member. One word more before he sat down. It was very natural that he, on Monday, after the Bill had been discussed for seven or eight hours, should have supported the Motion to report Progress; but what did the promoters of the Bill do? They said they should not assent to Progress being reported, because two or three Gentlemen had made long speeches. It was true that a large portion of the time was taken up by two Gentlemen, of whom he was one; but if they had not spoken, there were other Members who, to his knowledge, intended to speak, but who did not. In any event, therefore, the time which had been taken would have been occupied. He trusted the Committee would see that on Monday, he had no other course to pursue than the one he took.
§ MR. O'CLERYwished to say that a sufficient number of Members were present to prevent the House being counted out, and there was a sufficient reserve to keep the House in sitting until this Bill was passed.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the Committee would proceed, and not be led away by the line of argument adopted by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken.
§ MR. PEASEsaid, as one of the warm supporters of this Bill, he would be prepared to urge upon his ton. Friend the 638 Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) a three years' trial of this measure as suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman), and he hoped the hon. Members for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) and Cork (Mr. Murphy) would withdraw their opposition, in order to give the Bill a fair trial, should this course be agreed to by his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, when called to Order, had been hardly dealt with. The Bill they were then considering, when they considered the Government Amendments which had been proposed, was not the same Bill as it had been before. He was sure that if the Government Amendments were adopted, the supporters of this Bill in Ireland would be dissatisfied. All their Petitions and organization would be wasted for a miserable Bill not worth having. If the Government Amendments had been known before, such an agitation would never, have taken place in Ireland, for the play was not worth the Candle. The Bill, so amended, would be like the play of Hamlet, without the principal character. He did not believe that any Member could get up and say that the Bill was worth having if the large towns were excluded from its operation. It was in the large towns that the measure was required, if required at all; and was this agitation to be kept up year after year simply to apply the principle of this Bill to the rural districts of Ireland? If the House carried the Bill with the Government Amendments it would omit the very parts of the country which demanded such a measure. In Ireland the principal promoters of this measure were persons actuated either by a feeling that drunkenness should be put down, or by Sabbatarian views, which made this Bill necessary. Had a meeting of the promoters in Ireland been held to consider the compromise now proposed, the Bill would not have been accepted in the form it was likely to take. They were now told that only a few small rural districts were to be affected by the Bill, and that lamentable position was to be supported by the Government. If the measure was to be tried for two or three years, then, he said, let the five exempted cities be included. Let them have no 639 humbugging trial of this question; and if such a proposition as had been made would include the five cities, it would have his support.
MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONthought it would only complicate matters if they discussed the duration of the Bill at that stage.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he would not have moved to report Progress had he had an opportunity of bringing before the Committee the new evidence he had to produce. The Petitions he wished to allude to had been presented within the last week. There were 52 in favour of the Bill and 103 against it. Of these 103, 102 were from the Provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, and only one from Ulster had been presented in favour of the Bill. He could assure the Committee that there never had been an agitation of such a fictitious character as that in favour of the Bill. He challenged hon. Members to prove that four years ago, at the General Election, this matter was even mentioned in their addresses to their constituencies. Only two persons had mentioned it—the two ex-Members for Dublin—they had lost their seats in consequence. A great deal had been said about the divisions in that House. The real state of the case was this. The other day 53 Members were in favour of the Bill, 15 were against it, and 35 were absent, in spite of a strong Whip issued by the promoters of the Bill and the Liberal Party. Out of the 53 who supported the Bill, 21 were from Ulster. There were eight Conservatives and 24 Home Rulers in the majority, while there were 14 Home Rulers against the measure. Out of the 59 Home Rulers, 23 were for the Bill, and 14 against it—that was the overwhelming opinion they had heard so much about. The Liberal vote on this question was only given to corner the Government. The other night there were six prominent Whigs for the Bill, and not one against it. When the Liberals were in power it was very different. As to the English Members, there were 37 against the Bill, and 119 in favour of it. They were told that the people of Ireland were in favour of the Bill; but of the two deputations from Ireland to London, the one in its favour was composed of two Scotchmen. Of course, it was easy to get up an agitation where there was plenty of money, and when one hon. Member was spend- 640 ing £3,000 a-year for that purpose, there was no lack of funds. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) talked of his public meetings; but where were they? He (Mr. O'Sullivan) challenged them to have a public meeting in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, and let that meeting decide the question of Irish opinion on the subject—would they take up that challenge? He should not have moved to report Progress, if he had not considered it hard to be shut up without making those facts known to the Committee, and he now asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, that they could not accept the challenge of a meeting in Phœnix Park, because it was well-known that the publicans of Dublin convened all such meetings.
§ MR. KING-HARMANpointed out that the other night they did not divide on the principles of the Bill, but whether the Chairman should leave the Chair or not; and, therefore, this important subject ought to be well-considered before they went further.
§ MAJOR O'GORMANhad so frequently spoken on this question in the course of several years, that he felt great diffidence in addressing the Committee again on the subject. He should confine his attention to the Amendment brought forward by the Attorney General for Ireland, and which exempted certain towns from the operation of this Bill. One of those towns was the city of Waterford—that was to say, that the city of Waterford might have its public-houses open during the usual regulated hours on Sunday, and that the surrounding towns were not to have their public-houses open on that day. That being the state of the case, he would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what must take place if the Bill, with that Amendment, passed into law. He held in his hand a list of the towns and villages near Waterford, in which the public-houses would be shut upon Sunday. The people of those neighbouring towns and villages would find themselves forced to flock into Waterford on Sundays for the purpose of obtaining liquor. A few of those towns were Carrick-on-Suir, Kil-macow, Portlaw, Passage, and Piltown; all would on Sundays come from those towns into Waterford. They must 641 come by boat, because that was the best and shortest way of doing so. [Laughter.] He wished to call hon. Gentlemen on the benches below him to Order. He assured the Committee that no one in that House enjoyed a good laugh more than he did; but he liked laughter to be convulsive, and not cachinnatory. Convulsive laughter was honest, but cachinnation was a sell, for there was nothing in it. The people of these towns would come to Water-ford by boats, and go into the public-houses, where they would sit all the day. They would drink a good deal; and when they wanted to go home, they would go to their boats at night and make the best of their way back to those places. Now, he ventured to say that many of these poor people would lose their lives by drowning. [An hon. MEMBER: Then there would be coroners' inquests.] Yes, there would be coroners' inquests. But did the right hon. Gentleman consider what would be the result of his Amendment, if passed. He had proved to him what disasters would ensue; and he wanted to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended seriously to proceed with his Motion? He believed he would be in Order to move to report Progress, and he would so move.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the previous Motion for reporting Progress had not yet been withdrawn.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MAJOR O'GORMANmoved to report Progress.
§ MR. CALLANmoved that Progress should be reported until after Easter. He believed that the opinion of the country had not yet been fully expressed on the subject. He had in his pocket a Declaration of the Sunday Closing Association, which contained signatures obtained by false pretences. On that Declaration was the signature of a gentleman who had proposed him at the last Election, and who for 18 years had been the chief magistrate of his district. He wrote to that gentleman, and, in reply, had received a letter that morning, stating, that if
my signature was affixed to any requisition calling on you to support the Irish Sunday 642 Closing Bill, I have only to say that I have never signed the document, or authorized anyone to sign it on my behalf; and, therefore, if my name appears on it, it is a forgery. I have never approved of the Bill; but, on the contrary, I believe it to be uncalled for and prejudicial, and tending to substitute shebeens instead of the regular licensed houses, and lead to a habit of the working classes to supply themselves with drink on Saturday.It went on to say that such a practice would produce most deplorable results. That was the opinion of the chief magistrate of his county. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had, over and over again, made charges against hon. Members of that House, based upon his favourite doctrine. He had said that "many a speech had been spoiled, and many a vote lost" through what he chose to call the "heated imagination of hon. Members." The hon. Baronet had gone further than this, and said that—The destinies of our Empire may some day be seriously affected—very seriously affected—by the consumption of intoxicating liquors by Members at the refreshment places which exist within the precincts of Parliament.The point he wished to press upon the Committee was this. As there could be no hope of making any substantial progress with the Bill between the present time and Easter, why not adjourn the further consideration of the measure until after the Holidays, and, in the meantime, endeavour to come to some sort of a compromise? There could be no chance of this if the Bill was to be made a Party question of. In 1873 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) voted against the principle embodied in this measure; but now the Whig Party were supporting the Bill in order to secure a few scattered votes in the North of Ireland. He had no hope of the matter being satisfactory settled, unless it was dealt with from a social, and not from a Party, point of view. He begged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Callan.)
§ MR. J. LOWTHERthought the suggestion of the hon. Member who spoke last was one worthy of attention; and 643 if, the Motion before the Committee being withdrawn, a division was taken upon the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he thought there could be no objection to postponing all further consideration of the Bill for a time, in the hope of a compromise being effected.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would at once withdraw his Motion in favour of the suggestion which had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 64: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
MR. SULLIVANthought the time had come at which the Government ought to state—having passed their Amendment—whether they intended to take up the Bill, or to afford facilities for its passage through the House. If the supporters of the Bill were to be abandoned to the obstructive tactics of a small knot of Members of the House, it would be better for them to take Sittings of any length, and force the measure forward.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government had never swerved from their original declaration—which was, that in the event of their Amendments being adopted, they would give facilities— and by facilities they, of course, meant time and nothing more—for the discussion of the Bill; such facilities being dependent, of course, upon the amount of time required for the transaction of the Public Business of the country. The Government had never undertaken to take charge of the Bill in any way, nor to support it.
THE O'CONOR DONwished the Chief Secretary could state more clearly the shape which the facilities spoken of by the Government would take. If this was not done, he feared that it would be necessary to put the Bill upon the Paper for every night between the present time and Easter. He did not wish to cause unnecessary inconvenience to the House; 644 but he should really like to understand in what position the Government intended to leave the promoters and supporters of the Bill. If the proposal of the Government were a reasonable one, those for whom he spoke would be willing to accept it.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERcould only say that it was impossible for the Government, in the present condition of Public Business, to name another day for the discussion of the Bill. Next week had already been set aside for an important debate, which was likely to last a considerable time; and then there were the Holidays to be remembered. The Government could not possibly promise a day before Easter; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, no doubt, in course of time, be able to afford facilities—by which he meant as much time as the Government could spare—for the consideration of the measure.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was exactly because "a day" had been mentioned before, that some hon. Gentlemen had been encouraged to think that if they consumed that day in opposing the Bill, they would effect the object they had in view. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther) shook his head. He was sure that if the Chief Secretary told the supporters of the Bill they would not be limited to a single day, they would be quite satisfied. The Friends of the measure which was now before the House required to know whether the Government intended to make any such limitation; for, if that were their intention, obstructive Gentlemen would be certain to try and occupy the time which the Government might afford.
MR. GOLDSMIDdesired to ask the Chairman whether the hon. Member was in Order, in saying that the Friends of the Bill "required" the Government to say so-and-so? He had sat in the House for a good many years, and he had never before heard such a demand made in that form. The present discussion had commenced on the understanding that if the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland were carried, further proceedings would be adjourned; but the supporters of the measure were raising all sorts of objections and were not keeping faith with the House or with the Government. In these circumstances, he thought that an adjournment should be made forth- 645 with, and that no more "demands" should be allowed.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend who had just spoken had stated that he never before heard a demand made in the House upon the Government. He had heard a demand made very often; he was not sure that he had not heard the hon. Gentleman make a demand himself; and he did not think his hon. Friend had amended his mode of speech, when he stated, as a matter of assertion, that the promoters of the Bill had broken faith with the House and with the Government. At the same time, it would not, in his opinion, be fair to make any further demand upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had made no limitation as to the quantity of time which the Government might give; and it was just and necessary for him to look to other and possibly more imperative calls of Public Business, which Members generally were bound to regard. In these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friends who promoted the Bill would see that they had obtained from the Government all that could reasonably be asked for.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would not ask anything from the Government which would be at all unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) appeared to consider the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as of such a distinct character that the advocates of the Bill were to get facilities for carrying it forward; and, that being so, he would not trouble the House by going on with the present discussion. He would not put down the Bill again before Easter; but, immediately after Easter, he would follow it up night after night, until he was able to make progress with it.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he must protest against what he conceived to be the most immoral compromise which had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. From the beginning of the agitation, the condition of the large towns in Ireland had been the main subject of complaint; and yet he now found that those who had advocated this measure readily granted to the Government licence to continue all the evils of the present system, in order that those Gentlemen might have the name of passing a Bill. That was not the manner in which Irish measures were usually presented to, and 646 promoted in, the House; and it was not, in his opinion, without a sacrifice of consistency and of political honour, that the present compromise had been effected.
§ Motion agreed, to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 13th May.