§ Order for Committee read.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
MR. O'SULLIYANtrusted at that hour of the night the Bill would not be proceeded with. There were very many Amendments, some of which would take a day to discuss, and therefore he should move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
1693THE O'CONOR DONthought his hon. Friend was not very reasonable in moving immediately after going into Committee to report Progress. The hon. Member knew the difficulties which a private Member had to contend with in bringing forward a measure of this sort. He thought they might make some progress in the Bill before adjourning, and he did not see why at that early hour of the night the Chairman should report Progress. The hon. Member had stated that there were very many Amendments. That being so, he regarded it as a greater necessity for proceeding with them until they came to the usual hour.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANremarked that many of the Members who were opposed to the Bill were under the impression that it would not come on that night, and had consequently left the House. The first Amendment was one of the most important Amendments to the Bill, and would occupy, at least, half a day; therefore, he considered it would be impossible to proceed with it at that time of the night.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYreminded hon. Members that Government assistance to obtain them a day had been promised, and under those circumstances he saw no occasion for proceeding with the Bill at that time. It was a very serious question. There had been a very important Bill before the House, which was expected to last all the evening, and it had lasted all the evening; and now this important Bill came on when many Members interested had left. He trusted that the Bill would not be proceeded with.
§ MR. STACPOOLEhoped the Bill would not be proceeded with now.
§ MR. CORRYpointed out that the House frequently considered important questions at a later hour than that.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that if his hon. Friend postponed going on with the debate they should have some promise that they would do what they really could to allow this question to come on for consideration. We were told early in the Session that the Government would give facilities for the passing of this measure. Nothing special, however, had been done; and if the Government would state what they would really do it would satisfy all parties.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that all he had to say on the part of the Government was that they would do whatever was convenient to the Irish Members. They did not want to interfere one way or the other, and the question was for the Irish Members to say whether they should begin or not.
THE O'CONOR DONwished to say a word or two as to the position in which he stood in regard to the conduct of this measure. The Bill had come on at an hour at which they usually transacted Public Business, and it would not be unreasonable to make what progress they could. He was perfectly aware that the Government had given a pledge that they would give facilities for the passing of this Bill. They had not, however, distinctly told them that they would give up Government time day after day until the Bill was passed; and therefore it would not be reasonable to expect that private Members, at an hour at which they usually transacted Public Business, should agree to give up the opportunities which they had of going on with this Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state to them that he would undertake, on behalf of the Government, to give them day after day until the Bill was passed, then he should feel free from responsibility, and would certainly consent to reporting Progress on the present occasion.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was desirable that there should be no mistake as to the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. They agreed to support the second reading of the Bill, on the understanding that they would propose certain Amendments in Committee. If these Amendments should be substantially adopted, the Government would be prepared to do what reasonably lay in their power to facilitate the passing of the Bill; but if the Amendments were rejected, the Government would be in a different position. With regard to the present discussion, he supposed it had been quite a chance that the Bill had been reached this evening; and it was for those who were interested in the discussion to decide whether they would or would not proceed with it to-night. That was a matter on which the Government expressed no opinion; but he could 1695 give no promise now, before the discussion of the Amendments, that he would give Government days for the Bill.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be impossible for him to give his consent to reporting Progress, without endeavouring, at least, to obtain the opinion of the Committee on the subject.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONhoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would withdraw his Motion. After the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was important that they should get through with the Amendments, and they were now' in a position to discuss them.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANthought that it was really unreasonable to ask them to go on with the Bill to-night.
MR. WHITWORTHthought it was most unreasonable that hon. Members should prevent the progress of a Bill which was so strongly desired by the people of Ireland.
§ MR. M. BROOKShoped the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would persevere with his Motion. Several hon. Members interested in this Bill were not present. His hon. Colleague the Member for Dublin was not here; the hon. Member for the county Cork was not here; and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would not persist in taking advantage of that which was really a surprise.
§ MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the promoters of the Bill the difficulty in which they would place those who, like himself, had always supported it. He represented a county—Meath— which was in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill, and nearly all the Irish counties appeared to take the same view. He had always himself felt considerable doubts as to the principles of the Bill; but he had never felt himself sufficiently justified in going against the declared wishes of his constituents in regard to a matter which concerned only themselves. He had, therefore, always felt it right to support this Bill in its previous stages. He understood from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would give every facility to the passing of this Bill, provided certain Go- 1696 vernment Amendments were agreed to by the House. The principles of the Government Amendments, he believed, did not affect the counties. They related to certain towns in Ireland with a certain population; and therefore, representing the wishes of a county, he felt absolved from any opposition to these Amendments. The proposition which the Government had made was that, if these Amendments were adopted, they would facilitate the passing of the Bill; and if its promoters insisted in opposing the Motion to report Progress, he would feel compelled to walk out of the House.
THE O'CONOR DONthought it necessary to say a few words in reply to his hon. Friend. He seemed to be under the impression that, in the remarks which he (the O'Conor Don) had made, he refused to accept the Amendments of the Government. He certainly never intended to convey any such idea. The Government Amendments had not been proposed; they had had no opportunity of discussing them; but when they were proposed, if there was any strong expression of opinion in their favour, he thought it was very likely that the promoters of the Bill would accept them. It was out of his power to answer for others, or to give any pledge that the Government Amendments would be agreed to; but his own opinion was, that they should accept the Amendments of the Government, upon the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman had stated—namely, that the Government would give every opportunity for passing the Bill. He himself could give no pledge for others; but he did not want it to be supposed, that he declined to accept the Government Amendments.
MR. PAGETsaid, that this important measure affected the interests of Ireland, and it had come on as a surprise, and that it would be quite unreasonable to ask them to proceed with it to-night.
§ DR. WARDsaid, that the assertion that this was a matter of surprise astonished him. This Bill had passed the House several times, and he regarded the attempt to obstruct it now as an attempt to prevent effect being given to the public opinion of Ireland. ["No, no!"] Well, the enormous majority of the Irish Members had voted in favour of this Bill. It had been most amply 1697 discussed, and the efforts which had been made to defeat it had proceeded from, a very small number of Members. To tell the House that this was a matter of surprise was, to him, a most extraordinary statement, the more particularly as the hon. Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don) had not pressed the advantage which he possessed when this Bill went into Committee a few days ago. The reward which the hon. Member received for his moderation was the attempt now made to resist the progress of the Bill. The House had time after time approved of the principle of the Bill, and it was most extraordinary that they should be asked to give up the advantage which they had obtained.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, it was abundantly clear that there was a mistake somewhere, and it was a very easy matter to find out and explain it. The error was one of words merely—the fact remained. So far as this matter being on the Paper was concerned, it was not, and could not be, any surprise to anybody; but it was unusual, and therefore not only a surprise but a great surprise that this—the 10th Order of the Day—an Order, moreover, 'so important as it was, should, by the merest accident in the world, have been reached, and should, therefore, have come on for discussion when a very large number of the Members for Irish constituencies had left for the night, never expecting the Order would, or could, be reached. That was the only mistake. Let them look at the empty benches at this moment, and could anybody believe that the opinion given by so few Members would be taken as the general views of the House on a question of such magnitude and importance. Really, to discuss the matter under such circumstances was little short of an insult to Ireland itself. It was well known that this Bill did not affect the interests of those who were promoting it; but it applied exclusively to those who, comparatively speaking, were unable to make themselves heard in that House. It would be most unfair, unwise, and unjust, to proceed at this hour of the night with even one stage of this Bill. It was a measure which involved one of the greatest principles of Imperial legislation, and it ought not to be advanced a single step at such a time. It was only right to say that he was not one of those who cared about excluding or ex- 1698 empting certain places from the operations of the measure. He objected to the Bill altogether as an attempt to carry into effect the very worst and most objectionable form of class legislation. It was useless to deny, by those who would, no doubt, very willingly do so if they could, that it was a Bill brought in at the instance of a certain number of irresponsible people—teetotallers and Sabbatarians—both in England and Ireland, and they all knew who were the wirepullers who worked behind the scenes. In a matter of this kind they were not there to legislate for the "Upper Ten Thousand." Much as he respected some of them on other subjects, on this he did not care a single straw for the Bishops, nor did he value the opinions of the aristocratic element. What he wanted to arrive at was the uncontrolled and free view of the peasant. Those who had signed and professed to desire the passing of this measure not only had their own cellars, but knew how to use them. In fact, there was not a single thing which they denied themselves. Why, then, should they seek legislatively, as in truth they were now doing, to coerce the peasant class of Ireland? Why should he be asked to help that class which was not affected by the measure, at the expense of those classes who were? If these persons wished to avoid going into public-houses, nobody asked or compelled them to enter one, and by all means let them keep away; but they had no right to deny to a whole people, as it was thus sought to do, their common food and sustenance, and that mainly to support a crotchet.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, there was a very strong argument in favour of the Motion. Only a short time ago one of the cities which it was proposed to exempt from the operation of the Bill presented a Petition, signed by 2,700 persons, against the measure. He believed that about the same number had petitioned in favour of the Bill; but he had also reason to believe that within the next few days another Petition would be presented against the Bill which would be signed by upwards of 4,000 persons, as well as several very large Petitions in its favour. That Petition came, he was told, principally from artizans, and it showed that it was only at this stage of the agitation that public opinion was becoming directed towards the measure among persons of one set of opi- 1699 nions. Under these circumstances, with a long Session before them and the Government pledged to give proper facilities for the discussion of the Bill, he could not understand what the motive was for pressing it forward at 12 o'clock at night, except that it was desired to pass into its details without full discussion and before the various Petitions could reach. He asked the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to treat the Bill as he would treat a Government Bill if an important public measure were endeavoured to be forced on at that late hour of the night. If such a course were attempted by the Government it would be resisted by the House, and the Government would be compelled to postpone the Bill, and to fix a reasonable day and hour for resuming it. He could not conceive how the hon. Member could suffer any injury by postponing the Bill. If the hon. Member was perfectly sure of his case, and believed it to be in accordance with the feeling of the Irish people, the only result of postponing it would be to secure in its favour a still stronger expression of opinion, and to ensure that the issue would be fairly tried.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the discussion, and he asked hon. Gentlemen to recollect how it was that so early in the Session they had arrived at this stage of the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), on the Monday after the meeting of Parliament, put this Bill down upon the Paper for a second reading. It was expected that the Government would move the postponement of the Orders of the Day, so that the Government Business might be brought on; and very few hon. Members had any idea that this Bill would come on upon that particular day. It did, however, come on, and passed a second reading, few only being present to oppose it, and it was thought unwise to challenge a division. On the following Wednesday it was put down again for Committee, and a curious thing-—one that was almost unprecedented—happened. The House adjourned at 10 minutes to 1 o'clock; but, before doing so, the hon. Member for Roscommon moved the House into Committee on the Bill. Nobody had expected that the Bill would come on, as an important Scotch Bill was on the Notice Paper 1700 before it; but owing to an informality when the second reading was moved, the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair ruled that the Bill could not be proceeded with. He (Mr. Onslow) thought the measure was one of very great importance. He might be told that the minority against it was comparatively small. He did not care how small the minority was, but he should always give his vote so as to prevent the Bill from passing if possible. At the same time, he did not wish to be an obstructionist. He wanted to ensure for the Bill a full, fair, and free discussion. A Session or two ago, he believed, the Bill passed a second reading by a majority of 50; but he thought that many hon. Members who voted for the second reading then were very sorry that they did so, considering the way in which the Bill had been brought before them since. He sincerely hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon would agree to the adjournment of the discussion, and that he would not attempt to force on so important a Bill in such a thin House. There was another reason why he objected to that stage of the Bill being taken. Judging from the cheers which came from both sides of the House that evening, when a New Writ was moved for the City of York, he gathered that they now had a very popular Chief Secretary for Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman who had recently accepted that appointment (Mr. J. Lowther) had not yet had time to go into the details of this measure. It was, therefore, only fair to that hon. Gentleman that he should have an opportunity of considering the Bill, and of saying whether he approved of the measure or not. For these reasons he (Mr. Onslow) hoped the House would not, on the present occasion, proceed further with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last, the hon. Member for the city of Limerick, had told them that further Petitions were coming in. Let them wait, then, and see the nature of these Petitions, and ascertain what the real feeling of the people of Ireland was. Probably it would have changed, now that they saw there was a chance of the Bill being rushed through the House. It was quite certain that the people of Ireland were more excited now in regard to the measure than they had been up to this time. He did not care what some unfortunate people among his constituents 1701 might have to say upon the question. He had certainly been very much blamed by a certain section among them for having opposed this Bill. All he could say, in his place in the House, was that he did not care what any particular section of his constituents might say; but he would still endeavour to oppose the Bill, in every possible way. He opposed it, in the first place, because he believed it to be a restriction upon the liberties of the people; secondly, because he feared that, if it were passed, it would only lead to an increase of drunkenness; and thirdly, because he believed it was exceptional legislation, that was not in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people; and because, if it were passed for Ireland, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), or some other hon. Member, would bring in a similar Bill next Session for England. Under circumstances almost unique, he was precluded at this stage of the Bill from entering into any lengthened discussion on its merits or demerits—undue haste, as he thought, having been exercised in bringing it to its present forward stage. For these reasons, he should certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate; and he trusted the Committee would see that there was really no necessity for passing the Bill hastily.
§ MR. O'CLERYpointed out that for three Sessions the question involved in this Bill had been discussed over and over again. No measure had ever received a fuller and fairer discussion. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had made some reference to Petitions being got up against the passing of the Bill. Now a Petition was presented not long ago, or rather two Petitions, purporting to be signed by 14,000 inhabitants of the town of Naas, in Ireland, against the Bill. It was a most singular fact that such a Petition should have been procured, seeing there were not 2,000 inhabitants which could be reckoned in the population of that town. He believed it was a well-known fact that the men most opposed to the Bill in that House were men who had a direct interest in the liquor traffic in Ireland. They were the men who were determined to obstruct the measure in every possible way. ["Order!"]
§ MR. STACPOOLErose to Order. The hon. Gentleman had made a charge that 1702 the opponents of the Bill were in the liquor trade. He (Mr. Stacpoole) was opposed to the Bill, but he was not in the liquor trade.
The CHAIRMANdid not think anything had fallen from the hon. Member which called for the intervention of the Chair.
§ MR. O'CLERYwas quite willing to say at once that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stacpoole) was not directly interested in the liquor trade. But he was sure that those who were interested in that trade were to be found among the most persistent opponents of this measure, and they manifested the interest which they took in the welfare of the people of Ireland by the fact that when an effort was made to have the public-houses in Ireland closed on Saturday evenings, they opposed it on the ground that the Sunday closing measure should first be settled, and yet when the Sunday Closing Bill came before Parliament they manifested just the same opposition. He trusted that the present discussion would be persevered in, even if it took till 6 o'clock in the morning. He thought it would be well worth while to adopt that course, as it would at once give an assurance to Ireland that the House would deal properly with this measure and facilitate its progress.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Clery) had pointed out that there were Petitions from the town of Naas containing 14,000 signatures against the Bill. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) had himself presented two of those Petitions; but they came not only from the town of Naas, but from the county of Kildare, and most of them were signed at the Curragh, so far as he could learn. He denied that he had said that the bringing in of the Bill at this hour of the night took the House by surprise —what he had said was that arriving at it so early took the House by surprise, and that hon. Members who opposed it had left the House under the impression that there was no chance of its coming on. He should certainly do all that lay in his power to prevent its being proceeded with to-night.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWIStrusted that the postponement of the Committee would not be agreed to unless some understanding was arrived at with the Government as to what they meant to do in reference to the Bill. A very poor re- 1703 turn was now being made for the honourable and delicate conduct of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), who, when he got the House into Committee on the Bill the other Wednesday, declined to make any progress with the clauses because of the absence of those whom the hon. Gentleman knew to be opponents of the measure. As to bringing on the Bill at a convenient time, they knew that no time would be convenient to determined opponents. If an adjournment were now agreed to, the Government ought first to say what facilities they would give for discussing the clauses in Committee. If the sort of guerilla warfare which had been exhibited to-night was to be carried on for the future, no private Member would ever have a chance of getting a Bill through Parliament.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that the Government supported the Motion for reporting Progress. He had stated already what the position of the Government was—they had agreed to the second reading of the Bill, and they had agreed to put certain Amendments on the Paper. If those Amendments were in substance adopted, the Government would make facilities for the Bill; but if, on the other hand, they were not, the Government could not make themselves responsible for the measure. They only pledged themselves to have their Amendments discussed, and they left the promoters of the Bill to pursue what course they pleased. If the hon. Member for Roscommon divided the Committee against the Motion, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), for his own part, would vote with him.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 79: Majority 59. — (Div. List, No. 12.)
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he did not appear there as a partizan, he had long abstained from voting against the Bill; but he thought it impossible to proceed this evening, and he would therefore move that the Chairman leave the Chair. He could not, in justice to the constituents he represented, who were at that moment engaged on both sides in collecting and expressing their opinions on the subject—he could not, in justice 1704 to those constituents, be a consenting party to pressing forward the Bill at that period. They were now expressing, some on one side, some on the other, their opinions on the subject. It was not necessary that he should again go through the arguments which had been already stated in favour of an adjournment. They had a long Session before them, so that it was not necessary that they should discuss the Bill at that late hour of the night. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Chairman leave the Chair.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 20; Noes 77: Majority 57. — (Div. List, No. 13.)
§ MR. ONSLOWbegged now to move that the Chairman report Progress. He had one remark to make on what the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery) had said. The hon. Member said that the principal opponents of the Bill in that House dealt in liquor. Now, he supposed that he (Mr. Onslow) was one of the last men in that House who could be accused of having anything to do with the liquor traffic, except in regard to what he took himself. What he wanted was to secure a full and fair discussion for the Bill. Was it right for the hon. Gentleman the Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) to come down there a few days hence, and say—"This Bill, in which I took so much interest, has been passed during my absence?" He (Mr. Onslow) thought no one would be more surprised than the hon. Member himself (Mr. J. Lowther). Really they ought to give hon. Gentlemen time to consider the matter. Let them also consider who had been the Tellers in the division. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was one of those Tellers. He thought that was a very significant fact. It enabled them to see at once where the opposition to the Bill came from, and where the money came from to get up all the Petitions. It was not Irish money, but English money; and, therefore, upon all these grounds, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would agree, now that they had had their amusement and a little discussion, to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Onslow.)
DR. CAMERONsaid, he was a warm supporter of the Bill, but he thought the hour had now arrived when there was really no prospect of getting on with the measure, and he hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would therefore give way.
THE O'CONOR DONthought it was perfectly clear, after what had happened, and after the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be impossible to mate any progress that evening; but what had taken place clearly demonstrated that it was quite impossible for any private Member to pass the Bill through all its stages, or through that stage which was necessary in order to enable the Government to ascertain the opinion of the House upon the Government Amendments. Therefore, he thought he had a strong claim upon the Government that they should now name an early day for proceeding with the measure. He hoped he might be allowed to call the attention of the Committee to the whole facts of the case. This Bill, as already stated, came on in Committee on a Wednesday morning at half-past 12. The whole of that Sitting was then open for proceeding with the Bill; but, upon that occasion, not wishing to take hon. Gentlemen by surprise, but in order to give them fair play, he postponed the Bill at once and agreed to report Progress the moment the Preamble of the Bill had been postponed. What would be the position of the promoters of the Bill if they were not allowed to go on with it any night when it came on before 12 o'clock? If they were to be persistently opposed as they had been to-night, what possible chance would there ever be of getting on with it? He had looked carefully over the Order Book, and he found that all the Wednesdays were occupied until the close of the Session. He therefore appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now able to see the character of the opposition likely to be offered to the Bill, and that it was of the same description as the opposition offered in previous years—he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to name an early Government day when 1706 they could go on with the consideration of the Amendments. His hon. Friend the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) said, he ought to take the same course as the Government took in regard to Government measures that were called on at 10 minutes to 12 o'clock. That would be all very well if he had the same number of days at his disposal as the Government. In that case he would adopt tonight the course usually followed by the Government, and put the Bill down for Monday next. But, unfortunately, he was not in the same position as the Government, and he therefore appealed to the Government to redeem their pledge and give him an early day.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANwished to say one word in regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). His hon. Friend had taken credit for not pushing the Bill forward when it went into Committee on a Wednesday morning early in the Session. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) wished to remind his hon. Friend that he had told him (Mr. O'Sullivan) the night before, that he had only put the Bill down for that Wednesday in order to name a day for bringing it on. Under these circumstances, how could the hon. Member have pressed it forward upon that day, when everything else had lapsed? There were 17 Amendments down in regard to the Bill already, and they all knew, from the number of the Petitions which had been presented against it, that it would meet with considerable opposition. There were eight hon. Members representing constituencies in the county of Cork who were opposed to the measure, and not one of them was there that night. It was well known that the large majority of the people of the county and city of Cork were opposed to the Bill, and yet the hon. Members for that district had all gone away under the impression that the Bill was not coming on that night. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would not persevere further with the Bill, but would consent to report Progress.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) was one that deserved and required an answer from the Government. This Bill stood in totally different relations from 1707 any ordinary hon. Member's Private Bill. A pledge had been given by the Government last Session in reference to the measure, and an undertaking had been given that Session. That pledge and undertaking did not leave it at all in the category of a Bill of a private Member. The Government had undertaken to give facilities for proceeding with the Bill, with certain conditions, and his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon said that, unless the Government gave facilities immediately, it would be impossible to discover whether the conditions could be fulfilled or not. He understood his hon. Friend to say that the question of how far the Amendments of the Government were or were not to be adopted must really depend upon the course taken in Committee upon the Bill. He (Sir William Harcourt) could not conceive that the Government would take so irregular a course as to enter into a bargain outside the House as to what the exact character of the Bill should be when it came into Committee; and, therefore, the nature of the Amendments must be discussed in Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had said nothing more than was patent to every hon. Member of the House-namely, that if he was left to his own unaided efforts, this sort of opposition, proceeding, not from a majority, but from a minority, of the Irish Members, and from a few hon. Gentlemen who took the view of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), would leave him entirely helpless. Therefore, there was great force in the appeal of the hon. Member to the Government that they should give him an opportunity of placing his Bill in such a position as would enable him to get the Government Amendments discussed.
§ MR. ONSLOWsaid, that hon. Gentlemen would recollect that Her Majesty's Government last year offered every facility for proceeding with this Bill. On one Wednesday hon. Members who had precedence were induced to give way in order to make room for this measure, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Law-son) actually withdrew the Permissive Bill so that it might come on. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government had given every possible facility for proceeding with the Bill, and he hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon (the 1708 O'Conor Don) would now be content, and allow the Bill to run the ordinary course of Bills introduced by private Members.
§ MR. O'CLERYwished to remind the Committee that the concession made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) last year was defeated by one of the staunchest Friends of the Government — the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse)— who succeeded in talking the Bill out. [Mr. WHEELHOUSE said, that was an entire mistake.] He (Mr. O'Clery) was so accustomed to the persistent opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds, that he might be pardoned for the unintentional mistake he had fallen into. He might say that the Government had hitherto professed ignorance of the desire of the people of Ireland to have some such measure as this passed. He thought they could not plead ignorance of the desire of the House to have some such measure passed, judging from the majority that recorded their votes last year in its favour. Therefore, if the Government would not state frankly to the supporters of the Bill what they intended to do with it, it would be the absolute duty of the Irish Members to stand to their guns, and to show they were thoroughly in earnest in the support they gave the measure by continuing the discussion until their ends were obtained, or until they could induce Her Majesty's Government or the Leader of the House to come to some arrangement with regard to the Bill.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he would do justice to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse). It was quite a mistake that the hon. Member talked the Bill out last Session. The hon. Member did not talk it out every Session, and it was in the preceding Session that he succeeded in talking it out. What the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said might mislead the House. The only thing the Government did. in favour of the Bill last Session was to allow it to be put down for a Morning Sitting, and when two or three hon. Gentlemen were determined to talk out a Bill they could easily accomplish that object in a Morning Sitting. The proper thing for the Government to do was to give a Sitting which might be prolonged for an indefinite period, and that they did not do.
§ MR. M. BROOKShoped the Government would not give the exceptional facilities that were asked for in favour of this Bill. He regarded the course which had been taken that evening as an attempt to steal a march on the Irish Members who were opposed to the Bill. The Bill itself was intended to coerce th6 large majority of the Irish people— not those who were upon the electoral list, but those who did not enjoy the franchise. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman whould not give any further facilities, or make any further concessions to the appeal of the hon. Member for Bos-common.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,thought the undertaking of the Government was as much as could reasonably be expected from them, and they had not the slightest intention of departing from it. They stood now to what they had said—namely, that as the Bill proceeded, if the Amendments proposed by the Government were subsequently adopted, then they would endeavour to give all the facilities in their power for passing the Bill through the other stages it would have to pass; but they could not, at that period of the Session, undertake to set aside Government Business for the discussion of a Bill in regard to which there seemed to be a great deal of difference of opinion among the Irish Members, and about which there must naturally be a great deal of discussion. Hon. Gentlemen must be aware that the Government had throughout been prepared to aid the hon. Member in discussing the Bill tonight; but the feeling of the House was against this course, and it was impossible to proceed in opposition to such a clearly-expressed opinion. He was sorry that it was so; but he did not think it would be at all fair that the Government at present should be called upon to give any definite promise.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, it was difficult to understand how the feeling of the House could be against him when 77 hon. Members present had voted for proceeding and only 20 against. But irrespective of that, he had risen chiefly to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they were to understand that the Government would give no facilities for the progress of the Bill until the question had been finally decided in regard to the Government 1710 Amendments? If those were the promised facilities offered by the Government, he thought the proceedings which had taken place that evening showed that the facilities promised would be comparatively valueless. It was quite in the power of hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill to prevent any opinion being given on the Government Amendments. They had only to put down Amendments themselves and make long speeches in order to render it impossible for a private Member to advance the Bill sufficiently to reach the required point until the close of the Session. He therefore wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he understood him to say that until the Government Amendments were passed he would give no facilities for proceeding with the Bill?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not gone the length of saying that; and if he had said so, such a declaration might have been attended with the inconvenience suggested by the hon. Gentleman. What he had said was, that at the present early period of the Session it was impossible to go beyond the promise which had already been made. He thought that the promoters of the Bill should use their best exertions in order to try and find a day for bringing on the measure. He did not say what the Government would be prepared to do later on in the Session; but he must have regard to the other Government Business, and he could not undertake at the present period of the Session to set aside Government Business for the purpose of going on with that Bill.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISasked how the promoters of the Bill were to make further exertions than they had made? They had come down prepared to support the measure, and finding it came on before 12 o'clock, they were ready to go on with it. Yet an hour or more had been wasted in fruitless Motions for adjournment, showing what the opposition was likely to be in the future, and proving that it was impossible for the promoters of the measure to do anything in the matter unless they received aid from the Government. Whatever might have been the exact mode or form of promise made by the Government, he thought it had hardly been adhered to in the spirit. The measure was looked 1711 upon with great gravity, and was regarded as one of great importance in the sister country. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had advised the hon. Member for Roscommon not to take a further division. He (Mr. Lewis) would ask the hon. Member for Roscommon to persist in dividing the House, in order to see whether the Government would vote for an adjournment or not, after the very unsatisfactory way in which they had complied with the application made to them to fulfil in the spirit the promise they had given.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that all persons in Ireland were anxious that this question should be determined, and it was for that reason that he strongly supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) for the Government to give them as full and immediate an opportunity for discussion as possible. In regard both to those who supported and those who opposed the Bill, it seemed to him that it was to their interest to have the matter decided quickly. Last evening the debate came on unexpectedly, and he had voted for postponement; but this evening all parties were aware that it would be pressed, and if any were absent, they could not complain of surprise.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it seemed to him that the Bill, which was not now for the first time before Parliament, was being met by a most extraordinary opposition. They were now arrived at a period when, after the Government last year had foreshadowed that they would, if certain Amendments they proposed were carried, agree to the passing of the Bill. They were not ready now to redeem their promise to give facilities for passing it this Session. Now, he must say that he considered that a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. A small, but a very persistent, minority had used every possible endeavour to obstruct the measure in every Session that it had been introduced. They now argued that it had not been before the people of Ireland, and that they wished for time for the people of Ireland to consider it. Now, to say that it had not been considered by the people of Ireland, or that it had not been considered in that House, was, he thought, rather a ludicrous assertion. It had been brought before 1712 them repeatedly and persistently, and it had been not only strongly supported, but carried by large majorities in that House. He hoped the Government would at last see their way to making some provision for having the Bill properly considered in Committee. He did not know whether those who opposed it were consumers or producers; but, between the two, they opposed it very strongly. He dare say the consumers were quite as earnest as the producers; although he could not forget that, as far as the consumption of spirits on a Sunday was concerned, a good many people might be able to supply themselves on the day before. It certainly appeared to him that the opposition at the present time was, he would not say factious, but extremely obstinate. He hoped the Government would give facilities for the consideration of a Bill which had excited such deep interest among the people of Ireland. His hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Stacpoole) had denied that he was a producer; but he (Mr. Macartney) assumed, at any rate, that his hon. Friend was a consumer.
§ MR. STACPOOLEwished to know if the hon. Member for Roscommon was prepared to accept the Amendments which had been brought forward by the Government? If they accepted those Amendments, the fact might facilitate the measure going forward. He therefore asked if the Amendments were accepted or not? He had been charged with being a consumer. He certainly was; but it was not upon that ground that he opposed the Bill. He would never be prepared to support any measure that proposed to rob a man of his beer.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it would be irregular to enter into any discussion of the Amendments that already stood upon the Paper.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought it was a waste of time to prolong the discussion; but, as he had felt it his duty early in the Session to give a promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), he wished to trouble the Committee with a few words to explain the nature of that promise, to which the Government were prepared to adhere. The promise he had made amounted to this—the hon. Member for Roscommon had given Notice of 1713 his intention to introduce the Bill. The Government assumed, naturally, that lie would take means for proceeding with its subsequent stages, and obtain the best days for that purpose. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was authorized, on the part of the Government, to say that, if necessary, they would give him further facilities to ensure the discussion of the Bill during that Session, in order that the question might be settled that year. Now, what had. happened? The hon. Member had introduced the Bill. He had obtained a day for the second reading, and on another day had succeeded in moving the Speaker out of the Chair. So far he had been extremely fortunate. He now proposed, at 12 o'clock at night, to ask the House in Committee to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was bound to say that, though he was anxious that every fair opportunity should be given for proceeding with the Bill, and although he had supported the hon. Member in the division—he did think his proposal was somewhat unreasonable. Nobody anticipated that the Bill would come on that evening. It so happened that an earlier adjournment of the debate on the County Government Bill took place than anybody could have expected, and a Bill on which there was likely to be much discussion was not usually begun after 12 o'clock at night. At any rate, there were four or five Government Bills on the Paper, after the County Government Bill, that were not proceeded with on this ground. However, when the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to proceed with the consideration of his Bill, the Government had done their best to induce the Committee to do so; but, in spite of what the hon. Member had said of 77 hon. Members being in favour of going on and only 20 against, he had no doubt the hon. Member would admit that, although there had been a general wish on the part of the Committee to proceed with the Bill if possible, yet there was a considerable feeling that the hour had now arrived when the further progress of the Bill must be postponed. They were now at the 14th of February; it was an early period in the Session. The hon. Member would have other opportunities of inviting the House, in Committee, to consider the provisions of this Bill. No doubt there were many days that might 1714 be available, for all the Tuesdays were hardly likely to be occupied, and there were several Wednesdays on which particular Bills stood as the only Orders of the Day. For instance, there was the Permissive Prohibitory Bill, which stood by itself for one day; the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, which stood for another; and the Sale of Liquors on Sunday Bill, which was down for a third. These Bills had, he believed, in former years, been more than once postponed in order to suit the convenience of those who were anxious to proceed with this particular measure. The sponsors of these measures were certainly ardent promoters of the present Bill, and he had no doubt they might again be induced to postpone their measures for the sake of proceeding with this. It was, therefore, a little early for the hon. Member to come to the Government and say—"I cannot go any further with this Bill; you must now give the facilities you promised to give if they were necessary." He was bound to say it did seem to him that the hon. Member ought to make a certain amount of further effort to secure that consideration for the Bill which they were all anxious it should receive. The Government adhered to the promise they had made, and they considered that they were bound by it. They were certainly as anxious as the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) or the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) that the Bill should be settled before the end of the Session.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) must be aware that in regard to Tuesdays there was very little likelihood of an Order of the Day coming on at an early hour. Therefore, Tuesdays were out of the question. And in regard to Wednesdays, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman proposed? The first day he had referred to as available was the 29th of May. Was it reasonable to expect that, with a great number of Amendments to the Bill, and with the promise that these Amendments would take a considerable time in discussion—was it reasonable, seeing that this was the 14th of February, to ask the promoters to postpone the consideration of the Bill in Committee until the 29th of May? That, however, was absolutely the only proposal the right hon. Gentle- 1715 man made; and because he (the O'Conor Don) did not at once consent to postpone the Bill until the 29th of May, the right hon. Gentleman told him that he was unreasonable. If that was the sort of spirit in which the pledge made by the Government at the beginning of the Session was to be carried out, he could only say that he had been greatly deceived in regard to it. There was one statement made by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) which he wished to refer to. The hon. Member must be under a misapprehension if he thought that he (the O'Conor Don) had assured him that he did not intend to go on with the Bill in Committee on the Wednesday when it first went into Committee; because he distinctly stated—and he believed the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) would bear him out—that it was his intention to go on and make as much progress as he could with it upon that day. He certainly did not expect that he would be able to make much progress, as there were several prior Motions on the Paper, and he stated this to the hon. Gentleman, telling him that if he did not make any progress, he could, at least, name a day; but he gave no pledge whatever that he would not go on with the Bill, either to the hon. Member for Limerick or to anyone else.
§ MR. DILLWYNasked the Government if it was not reasonable that they should give some better assurance to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) in regard to facilitating the future progress of the Bill? He (Mr. Dillwyn) had voted for the Bill, not because he was particularly fond of it, but because he conceived it to have been undertaken in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Members. If his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon had been told that he must find his own opportunities for passing the Bill that Session, there certainly would not be much chance of making progress with it, if he was to be treated as he had been that evening. They had already had a good specimen of the way in which he was likely to be met. The Government told him that, if he had not disposed of the Bill before the end of the Session, they would give him facilities. He was afraid in that case we should have the same scenes repeated that we had had before under the 1716 present Government. Everything was deferred until the end of the Session, and then it was all hurry-skurry to get through the Business, without any chance of disposing of it satisfactorily. If the Government pledge was merely a promise to the hon. Member for Roscommon to give him facilities at the end of the Session, then the measure must be considered to be in the category of those which were certain to be obstructed and defeated. He thought the Government might make some concession to his hon. Friend, and ensure that the measure should receive discussion at an earlier period than the end of the Session.
§ MR. ONSLOWthought he could suggest a solution of the difficulty. His hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) said he might be able to bring the Bill in on the 29th of May.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had not stated that it could come on on the 29th of May. His impression was, that if it were postponed until then, it would not come on at all, looking at the state of the Order Book. What he had said was, that that was the first day the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had mentioned.
§ MR. ONSLOWhoped it might come on on the 29th of May. And, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not seem to care very much for his Bill last year, he might be induced to give up also the 26th of June. Last year the hon. Baronet appeared to care more for this Bill than his own, and he (Mr. Onslow) hoped the hon. Baronet would have no objection to give way to the hon. Member for Roscommon.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was present in the House when a celebrated discussion took place between the late Prime Minister and Mr. Miall, who thought he had been taken in about the Education Bill, and said "once bitten, twice shy." Now, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not be taken in or led away by any promise of the Government such as that which was made last year. The promise made last year was what he said at the time he thought it would be. Although he gave way, it had turned out to be entirely a mockery, a delusion, and a snare.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 25; Noes 37: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 14.)
§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS,in moving that the Chairman do leave the Chair, said, that the promoters of the Bill, he thought, ought to be satisfied, now that they saw the kind of support they were to expect from the Government, who, after two divisions, had walked out of the House. He thought this would let the people of Ireland know that there was some ground for the assertion that this was a publican's Parliament, and that there was ground for believing that the Conservative Ministry were too much identified with the publican interest.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Charles Lewis.)
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Lewis) could not be aware of the effect of carrying such a proposal as he had just made. The effect of it would be to throw the Bill back a stage; therefore it was impossible for the supporters of the Bill to consent to a proposal of that kind. Surely the hon. Member had made the Motion under a misapprehension. With regard to the charge against the Government, he could not go so far as the hon. Member. He thought, however, that the Government might have given them stronger assurances than they seemed disposed to give, for they must see the difficulties in which the promoters of the Bill were placed. For the right hon. Gentleman to refer them to the 5th of June or 26th of June was practically to say that the facilities offered by the Government were not real facilities at all.
§ MR. M. BROOKS,rising to a point of Order, asked if it was Parliamentary language to describe the House as a publican's Parliament?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the phrase was one that was not usual; but it would have been more in Order if the hon. Member for Dublin had risen at the time the assertion was made.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought they really ought to come to some understanding now. The facilities the Government had offered had been few, either in 1718 the abstract or concrete, judging from the proposition of the right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Baronet said—"Oh, you can make your own exertions in this matter; and when you have done so, we will see what we can do for you." The only practical offer he had made was—"If you can get the 26th of June, why then we will see what we can do for you." That was practically to say that the Government did not mean to give any facilities. Really, that was the only chance the right hon. Baronet offered the promoters of the Bill to bring on their Bill. It would be dealing with more straightforwardness if they would get up and say—"We really don't mean to give any facilities at all." Anyone who had any experience of Parliamentary Business must know that an offer to bring on a Bill in July was equivalent to no offer at all.
§ MR. MEREWETHERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) could hardly have been in the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a promise to the other side, which was received by several Members with profuse thanks. It was not until what had been called a "specimen of obstruction" took place, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) was compelled to say that the Government could not assist him at all. He (Mr. Merewether) asked whether the hon Member for Roscommon, because he met with obstruction on his own side, was to come here and ask the Government to give him facilities which no private Member on that side could obtain if he was subjected to the same obstruction?
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked if "obstruction" was a regular Parliamentary expression?
§ MR. MEREWETHERsaid, he was quoting from the remarks of one of the hon. Member's own friends, who said— "This is a specimen of obstruction which hon. Members had to meet with." He did not mean to say it was applicable, or even Parliamentary.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had entirely misrepresented the remarks he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) made. He never intended to say, and never said, that the hon. Member for Roscommon 1719 (the O'Conor Don) might endeavour to bring on his Bill on the 26th of June, and that the Government would not give him any day until after that date. All he did was merely to suggest to the hon. Member that he might endeavour to persuade the promoters of other Bills to give way for him, as they had already yielded; and he instanced certain Bills, the promoters of which had in previous Sessions given way in favour of this Bill. He certainly did not think that the promises of the Government would be redeemed by waiting until the 26th of June, in order to give facilities for the hon. Member to proceed with his measure. On the other hand, he thought it was entirely unreasonable that on the 14th of February they should be asked to postpone all other Business in order to facilitate the progress of this Bill.
§ MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he could not often support the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), but he could heartily support him in his Motion now before the Committee. He must remind the Committee that the last time there was an Irish Coercive Bill before them it took 12 nights to discuss it. If the Government were to give two days, then they might discuss the Sunday Closing Bill, but they could not do so in less.
THE O'CONOR DONinformed the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) that he had looked through the Order Book, and certainly he had not intended to make any appeal to the Government until all the means at his own disposal were exhausted. So far as he could see, there was no day which he could have a chance of having before the 5th of June. An hon. Friend reminded him that the 5th of June would be the Derby Day, and as there would be no House on that day, it really came to this—that they had no day open to them before the 26th of June; for, as regarded Tuesdays, they were quite out of the question. He did not want the Government to postpone any of their measures for him. All he wanted them to do was to say they would take the matter into consideration as soon as they could, that they would, at as early a period as possible, give the House an opportunity of discussing some of the Amendments to the Bill, of which Notice had been given. If they would do that early in the Session, it would save a good 1720 deal of Government time as well as that of the promoters of the Bill. He did not at all wish to be unreasonable, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say something of the kind, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Londonderry to withdraw his Amendment.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that the course which had been pursued within the last hour or two with regard to the facilities asked of the Government had not been a wise one. There had been no indisposition on the part of the Government to give fair opportunities for the progress of the Bill; but it was unreasonable that at this early period of the Session they should be pressed to promise to give up Government time for this Bill. At the present time of the Session, and under existing circumstances, he was not in a position to enter into any formal engagement with the promoters of the Bill and the Committee as to when the Bill should be brought on. He had no doubt that if the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) and his' Friends were to look at the Paper, they would find an earlier day than they anticipated on which to bring forward their measure. If they failed to do so, the Government would be ready to consider what should be done. The hon. Member for Roscommon knew perfectly well there was no indisposition on the part of the Government to give fair play to the Bill. The Government had certainly been pressed in an unbecoming manner, and especially so by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, whose only desire seemed to be to find, something about which he could blame the Government. That kind of proceeding was not such as would bring about an amicable arrangement. With regard to the observations that were made as to their not voting on the last occasion, he really understood from the hon. Member for Roscommon that he saw no use in proceeding. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would advise the Committee to agree to report Progress.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment. ["No, no!"]
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: — Ayes 6; Noes 56: Majority 50. — (Div. List, No. 15.)
1721THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that, after what had taken place, it would be quite useless to proceed further that evening; therefore, he would move that Progress be reported.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.