SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]

HC Deb 13 May 1878 vol 239 cc1812-53

(The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Carry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th April.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[A.M. 2.10]

Clause 1 (Extension of Acts prohibiting sale of intoxicating liquors to the whole of Sunday).

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING moved that Progress be reported. He could not think that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), who had charge of the Bill, intended to proceed with it at that hour. He trusted that the majority of the Committee would consider that they ought not to enter on a question of this kind at 2 o'clock in the morning.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that if the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Cork was that of the majority of the Committee, he would not say more on the subject. But the view he took was that this Bill was one of no ordinary character. The mode in which it had been met on previous occasions had been of no ordinary nature. The Bill had been over and over again discussed, and there was no Amendment upon the 1st clause of the Bill, the principle of which had not been considered before. Neither was there anything in the Bill that required either discussion or report in the newspapers. All that could be said for and against the Bill had been already said. The Bill had been met by very strong opposition, and the opponents would use every Form of the House to defeat it, and prevent its becoming law, and he thought it not unreasonable that the promoters should use all the forms of the House to pass it. He only asked that the Committee should now pass the first clause, and that proposition he did not think was unreasonable.

MR. ONSLOW

thought it somewhat unreasonable that the Committee should be asked at that hour to pass the 1st clause of the Bill, when there were eight or nine Amendments to it on the Paper.

MR. KING-HARMAN

said, that although he had certain doubts as to whether this measure would be beneficial to the Irish people, yet he recognized the fact that the majority of the people of Ireland had petitioned to Parliament in its favour. He did not see why they should delay the Business of the country by adjourning the debate. Their main object was to see the people protected against a most deleterious vice.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

wished to say one word with regard to the position of the Government to the measure. If there were to be a fair discussion of the 1st clause of the Bill, he should be prepared to continue the Sitting; but if the night were to be spent in mere Motions for Adjournment and reporting Progress, the Government would do nothing at all. The Government would be willing to sit down if there wore to be a real bonâ fide discussion, otherwise they must support the Adjournment.

THE O'CONOR DON

was afraid that the effect of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to produce the very result which he did not desire; for he had pointed out to the opponents of the Bill that they had only to declare their intention to occupy the time in obstruction, to induce the Government to take up their side. The inevitable result would be that the opponents of the measure would adopt the suggestion thrown to them. But, whatever course the Government took, he should feel bound to press the Committee to proceed with the Bill, though, of course, if the majority wore against him, he must bow to their decision.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

supported the Motion to report Progress. The promoters of the Bill had abandoned its most vital principles in allowing public-houses in the principal cities of Ireland to be opened from 5 A.M. to 2 P.M.

MR. O'CLERY

remarked, that the Government had pledged itself to support the Bill, and it was not fair to withdraw at that period. The whole subject had been discussed over and over again, and the Government ought to facilitate its being then proceeded with.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

remarked, that since 4 o'clock that afternoon he had not, as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to have done, absented himself from the duties he had to discharge as a Member of the House in order that he might be refreshed for giving opposition to the Bill; and he was prepared to remain there until 4 o'clock to-morrow afternoon if the hon. Gentleman (the O'Conor Don) wished to proceed with the measure. With reference to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. Gentleman appeared to him never to lose an opportunity of drawing comparisons. He would remind him, however, that when certain Irish Members objected to the progress of particular Business, they did so because the matter had not been discussed at all. This, however, was a question which had been debated over and over again.

MR. COLLINS

said, he had been engaged for some hours in the course of the afternoon in endeavouring to effect an arrangement which, he thought, was a reasonable one, and which, in his opinion, might well be accepted by the promoters of the Bill. The proposal which he had submitted to his hon. Friends was, that if they would accept the principle of the Amendment which stood in his name—["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in raising a discussion on his Amendment at the present stage.

MR. COURTNEY

desired to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a remark which he made on a former occasion—that the conduct of a Bill involved a good deal more than the particular law proposed to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it involved the question of the preponderance of a majority of the House over a rebellious minority; and he had administered a not undeserved rebuke to a right hon. Member who appeared to have acted upon an opposite view. On this occasion, however, the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer amounted to a suggestion as to how the progress of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill might be stopped—how the enemies of the measure might impede its progress. No doubt, it was, under ordinary circumstances, perfectly just and right to say that the Bill should not be proceeded with after 2 o'clock in the morning; but the circumstances of this case were wholly exceptional, and he thought it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to state how, on a future occasion, he proposed to promote the progress of the measure.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 97: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 121.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O'Gorman.)

MR. SULLIVAN

thought the time had now come when the Government ought to make some statement in explanation and vindication of their conduct. The promoters of the Bill had been assured that if the Amendments of the Government were accepted, facilities would be afforded for the passing of the Bill. What facilities, however, had the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to them on this occasion? So far from having held out any facilities, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested to the opponents of the measure—no doubt, unwittingly—how it might be strangled this evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly aware of the object of those hon. Members; he knew quite well that unless the Government interfered, they had only to persevere in the course they had hitherto adopted in order to defeat the measure. [Major O'GORMAN: Hear, hear!] It was obvious that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) could not carry the Bill unless the promises of the Government were fulfilled, not in any deceptive, but in a thoroughly substantial manner. There was a petty handful of Irish Members who were endeavouring to trample on the will and wish of their own country; and, if the Government would do nothing more than offer another few hours at a Morning Sitting for a discussion of the Bill, those hon. Gentlemen had only to talk against time in order to defeat it. He put it to the Government whether the hon. Member for Roscommon had not kept faith with them as to the acceptance of their Amendments, and whether, although he had done so, they had not done their utmost on the present occasion to strangle the Bill? He warned the Government that in Ireland, when what had just occurred became known, the feeling would prevail that the Government had broken faith with the hon. Member; that, after having given a public pledge, they had kept it only in a deceptive spirit, and had betrayed the interests of the people of Ireland.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had sat a good many years in the House, and it had been his lot occasionally to hear unfair speeches; but he thought he had never listened to a more thoroughly unfair speech than that which had just been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He was astonished that the hon. and learned Member should have accused the Government of being false to their promises. What was the position which the Government had taken up on this matter, and on what foundation did the hon. and learned Member dare to say that they had violated their pledges while the hon. Member for Roscommon had not broken his? What the Government had said in regard to the Bill they had said throughout—that they were prepared to give facilities for its consideration, if those who were promoting it were willing to accept certain Amendments. That was what they said some time ago, and that was what they said now. No doubt the hon. Gentleman (the O'Conor Don) had adopted the Amendments of the Government; but was that any reason why, at such an hour of the morning (half-past 2) the Government should assist in keeping a House, after they had been distinctly warned that time was to be wasted in factious opposition? The hon. and learned Member for Louth had himself got up and informed the Committee in an emphatic manner of what was going to happen; and, in order to save the time of the House from being wasted, and the character of the House from suffering from divisions upon divisions on mere questions of Adjournment and reporting Progress, he had said that he was not prepared to recommend the House to go through a night of that kind. In these circumstances, he had certainly voted for an Adjournment of the Debate. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Sullivan) might ask, was that the way to help the Bill? But he would point out to him, that if it had not been for the course of obstruction which had been pursued by certain hon. Gentlemen earlier in the evening—a course of obstruction which had been carried on in the most unreasonable manner he had ever known—

MR. PARNELL rose to a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was evidently about to enter into an argument as to the way in which the opposition to a previous Vote had been conducted; and he desired to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in Order in doing so?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it would, of course, be out of Order to enter into any detailed discussion regarding the manner in which the previous debate had been carried on, or the arguments which had been used in the course of it as to a particular Vote in Supply.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, all he had intended to say was this—that if so much time had not been taken up with discussion in the early part of the evening, the Business of Supply might have been closed at half-past 12 o'clock, and there would then have been a much better chance of bringing forward this Bill with the view of having it discussed. He repeated that the Government were prepared to do what they could to facilitate the progress of the measure; but he would remind hon. Members that this was not the only Bill which the Government had to consider—that there was Government Business to be attended to, and that if hon. Gentlemen obstructed the time necessary for the transaction of that Business, so much less time remained within which facilities could be offered for the Bill of a private Member. The promise which the Government had made in regard to the particular measure now under discussion had been made in the spirit of sincerity, and whatever the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) might say, he was sure that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would acquit the Government of the charge of intending in any way to withdraw from their pledge.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth had evidently been surprised, and annoyed, at seeing the Government go into the Lobby with the opponents of the Bill; and, under that feeling, he had, perhaps, expressed himself more strongly than he would otherwise have done. For himself, he might say that, up till the last division, he had had no objection whatever to make to the conduct of the Government in regard to the Bill. They had been told most distinctly and consistently, from the commencement of the Session, that the Government would not take up the Bill and make it one of their own measures. Facilities had been promised, however, for carrying it through, and yet the Government on the late division supported a minority who were opposed to the Bill, and, so far, encouraged that minority to persevere in obstruction. He would say, at the present moment, let the past be past. Let what had taken place in the last division be past. The Committee had now declared, by a very considerable majority, that it was in favour of going on with the Bill; and he would, therefore, ask the Government to stand by that majority, to see that their view was enforced, and to declare to the opponents of the Bill that they would give them no further support. Let them pass the 1st clause and then report Progress. It was most unreasonable, after the Committee had declared its opinion, that the Government should support the minority rather than the majority.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

confessed, that he had been tempted almost, by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), to rise and ask the Chairman whether he was not out of Order? He thought they had great cause to complain that, upon occasions of that kind, the hon. and learned Member could not discuss a question without being offensive to others. He had hurt the feelings of many Gentlemen who differed with him on the present occasion, when he called those who were exercising their legitimate right of speaking and voting upon this question a petty parcel of Irish Members who were influenced by their pockets. [Mr. SULLIVAN: I never said anything of the kind.] He and several other hon. Members sitting near him certainly understood the hon. and learned Member to have made use of words to that effect; but he could assure him that there were Irish Members taking part in the debate and opposing this measure who had no pecuniary interest whatever in the question of Sunday closing. He asserted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself deserted the people of Ireland. What was it that the people of Ireland petitioned for? It was the closing of public-houses on Sunday, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had been a party to a compromise, whereby it was provided that the public-houses should be open on Sunday in the five cities and towns where the greatest amount of drunkenness prevailed. He had thus abandoned the principle of the Bill, and it was not fair of him now to attack, as he had done, certain Irish Members, when all that they contended for was that a like privilege, though not to the same extent, should be extended to the rest of Ireland—namely, that for three hours public-houses should be open on Sunday, thus making it a tentative measure.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

remarked, that the argument attempted to be founded upon the exemption of the large towns had been repeatedly brought forward and answered. It was a proposal made by Representatives of the Government, and acceded to by the promoters, on the ground that they would then be afforded facilities for the passing of the Bill. But, although the concession had actually been made, the facilities were withheld, and the concession was thrown in their face as something which deprived them of any locus standi at all in this matter. Would hon. Members insult the intelligence of the House by imagining for a moment that reasoning of that kind could be accepted? Why, it was perfectly absurd, and nobody knew the absurdity and utter hollowness of such reasoning better than the hon. Gentlemen who tried again and again to bring forward these arguments, which the supporters of the Bill were simply physically and intellectually tired of contradicting, exposing, and repelling. Reference had been made to the language of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), but this was not the first time that that hon. and learned Gentle- man had heard these very arguments brought forward after they had been repeatedly repelled; and it was no wonder, when he and his Friends had done all that reasonable and temperate men could do, that he should feel indignant at finding that their very concessions were taken up and used as missiles to be hurled in their teeth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considered it consistent with his duty, as the Representative of the Government of the country in that House, to stand by the minority in thwarting the intentions of the majority. That was his position. Why, that was the highest compliment that had ever been paid to the policy of obstruction by any Minister at any time in that House. He would like to know whether there was any precedent for it? He knew that the sympathies of Her Majesty's Government with a policy of obstruction had been demonstrated in a certain recent appointment by which Ireland had been complimented; but it was never demonstrated before, that the Representative of the Government, in that House, should openly, calmly, and deliberately constitute himself the champion of a minority, after the Committee had declared its wish. That was the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer occupied that night, and he felt certain that the country would not endorse it. On the contrary, the country, whether it be England or Ireland, would repudiate such an unconstitutional position for any Minister to assume.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), having decided to go on with the Bill, the Committee would not be surprised to find that he had obtained a victory in the last division, seeing that his Friends the Whigs had issued a "Whip" that morning. With respect to the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that the opponents of the Bill were trampling on the opinion of their countrymen, he denied it most emphatically. It was the Members who sought to force this Coercion Bill on Ireland who were really trying to trample on the liberties of their countrymen. If the measures which their country had at heart—such as the Land Question, the Education Question, and Home Rule—were brought forward and forced on in the way in which this Bill had been forced on, night after night, they would be nearer to the attainment of their wishes than they were at present. But far more trouble was taken by some Home Rulers to advance this Coercion Bill than was taken by them with regard to any other of the measures which the people of Ireland were asking for. He would tell the promoters of the Bill, that if they tried to force it on, its opponents would use every means in their power to obstruct it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 98: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 122.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Isaac.)

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, he wished to make a few remarks in reference to what had happened. A remark, which seemed to be very popular in certain quarters of the House, was that the principle of the Bill had been departed from, or surrendered by its supporters. That remark could not apply to him, inasmuch as he had never supported the Amendment of the Government to exclude the large towns. He did not, however, think that his hon. Friends who supported the Bill, and who took a contrary course, were in the wrong, and he was in the right. He could not follow them, and, therefore, he took the course he did. But he wished to express, in the most calm and temperate language he could possibly use, his deep concern and regret at the conduct of the Government that night. He was perfectly convinced of the sincerity, true-heartedness, and utter truthfulness of the Leader of the House. He thought himself that nobody could have acted more honourably in this matter than the right hon. Gentleman; but he must say that he seemed to have acted somewhat inconsistently that night, and he was greatly startled to find him in the Lobby with the minority on the first division as to reporting Progress. He would ask, what was the position of the promoters of the Bill at the present time? At whatever time it came on, they were always told that it was either too early or too late, and they were simply driven to this position—that they must accept, as the determina- tion of the minority of that House—sometimes receiving some indirect or left-handed assistance from the Government, and sometimes not—to thwart and defeat the supporters of the Bill by their uniform system of obstruction. Well, all he had to say to Members on his own side of the House was, that he went about the Lobbies, and heard interesting discussions as to how this election was to come off, and how the other election was to come off. Now, one of the most important county constituencies in Ireland was at that moment being appealed to by persons representing both Parties; and he would venture to say that if those who supported the candidate for whom, if he had a vote, he should record it, were consulted, it would be found that the vast majority were supporters of this Bill. He could go further, and say that when it became known throughout the County Down during the next two days what had been the conduct of the Government that night, it would not add to the chances of success of Lord Castlereagh, whom he desired to see returned. ["Oh, Oh!"] He felt bound to make this remark, because they were continually told that the opinions of the people of Ireland had not been ascertained on this point. They were told that the opinions of the vast majority of its Representatives, of public meetings, the prayer of Petitions, and house-to-house canvass, were of no value at all; and, therefore, his hon. Friends around him must pardon him for saying that he knew sufficient to be able to say, that if this matter were remitted to the electors of the County Down, there would not be much doubt about the result; and he was sorry to think he sat on the side of the House, where it could be said at that election, this Bill had been hardly fairly treated.

MR. STACPOOLE

said, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis) had spoken of a house-to-house canvass; but he should remember that the occupiers of houses might have any amount of drink they liked in their own houses. But what would the people, who had no houses, and who lived in lodgings do? They should be considered in this matter. Why should the 9,000 people who signed this wonderful Petition rule the whole country? Ireland contained a population of 5,000,000, all of whom were not householders.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had listened with great pain to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry; because a more unfair or a more unjust attack upon the Leader of that House and upon the Government from that side of the House, he had seldom or never heard. It was unfair, because no man knew better that the hon. Gentleman, that it was with regret—and he might say, even with pain—that his right hon. Friend got up and made the statement he had made. His right hon. Friend had been consistent throughout in the support which he stated the Government, on certain conditions, would give to the Bill. He was perfectly well aware that many of those who invariably supported him most heartily did not thoroughly approve of this Bill, and yet he had never for one moment swerved from the support which he promised to give to the measure. It was most ungenerous and unjust that, because the Leader of the House, who had its dignity at heart, and was bound to maintain it, got up and stated that, in his judgment, it was not wise to proceed with this measure at half-past 2 in the morning, such an attack should be made upon him. He thought his right hon. Friend had shown a wise discretion, and there was not a single man in that House who, whatever opinion he might have upon this Bill, would not say that he was right. His right hon. Friend foresaw what would happen. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to repeat a statement which he made in reference to this Bill a few nights ago. He would admit the importance of the measure to the people of Ireland; but was the manner in which they were going on the way to serve them? Had they not to think of the Officers of the House? Were they to keep the Chairman in the Chair all night, and recall the Speaker at a certain hour in the morning, when they had got other Business to do to-morrow? They ought to consider a little the dignity of the House; and, important as the Bill was, those who were acting in this way would not promote the attainment of their object, and certainly not maintain the dignity of the House.

THE O'CONOR DON

did not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just addressed the Com- mittee remembered a certain night in the last Session of Parliament, or whether he was one of those who, upon that occasion, showed so little consideration for the Officers of the House, and for the Speaker and the other Gentlemen who took the Chair? Then the Government set the example of sitting through, not alone the whole night, but through the whole of the following day, in order to carry a particular Bill, and in order to assert, what the supporters of this measure were now endeavouring to assert—namely, the rights of the majority. If the Officers of the House were put to inconvenience, there was no man who more regretted it than he. But if they were put to inconvenience, it was not by those who legitimately tried to carry out the wishes of the majority; but it was by those who endeavoured to obstruct Business, and who had persistently, Session after Session, obstructed this particular Bill. He did think it would be more consistent with the dignity and honour of that House—and it was a course they ought rather to expect the Government to follow—that they should endeavour to put down the obstruction which led to the disadvantages to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred. The course that had been adopted that evening, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman apparently approved, was a direct encouragement to a minority to keep the Officers of the House up late every night that any particular measure to which they were opposed was brought forward. He had never complained of the conduct of the Government until the late division. He had always admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fulfilled every pledge that he had made. He had admitted that the right hon. Gentleman never undertook to take up the Bill and devote the time of the Government to passing it; and, as he said on a former occasion, it was because they were bound to make some effort themselves to make progress with it, that they asked the attention of the Committee that morning to it. He did trust that the majority would upon that occasion assert its right, and that it would, if necessary, sit there, as it did last year, until they showed the minority that, whether the Bill be the Bill of a private Member or of the Government, the same rule should apply, and that there should be no exceptions.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it was quite true that there had been a prolonged Sitting on the South Africa Bill; but that measure had been brought forward as the first Order of the evening, when it could be fairly discussed. On the present occasion, however, the Bill now before the Committee had been taken at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Charles Lewis), he hoped it would not be again repeated that the Government had acted unfairly towards this Bill. He certainly did not support it; but it had been distinctly stated that the Government were prepared to afford facilities for its consideration in certain circumstances. As a matter of fact, a whole evening had already been devoted to a discussion of the Bill, and, at the close of that discussion, he announced that such further facilities would be afforded as the Business of the Government might permit.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, this question had been decided over and over again by considerable majorities, after full discussion, and he thought it rather hard that English Members who supported the Bill should have to come down there and listen time after time to a quantity of stale, vamped-up arguments. The opponents of the Bill ought at least to pay the Committee the compliment of getting up a few new ideas.

MR. RODWELL

thought that nothing could be more unreasonable than to propose to proceed with the Bill at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members should be in their beds instead of being kept in Committee doing nothing, and he appealed to the Government to put an end to these proceedings. Certain hon. Members had been very loud in denouncing what they termed the system of obstruction which had been pursued in regard to the Bill; but it was very much owing to the manner in which those same hon. Members had wasted the time of the House in the earliest and best parts of the evening in discussions about charwomen and wretched shillings and sixpences, that the Bill had not been taken up at a reasonable hour. The opposition to the Bill appeared to be more persistent and violent on every occasion when it was proposed that the measure should be discussed; but he did not think that those Members of the House, who faithfully endeavoured to discharge their duties in Committee and elsewhere, should be kept sitting for hours doing absolutely nothing.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he knew perfectly well that the handful of hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill were reckoning upon this—that if they persisted in their obstruction, the Government would not assist the passing of the measure; but if, on the other hand, the Government would once take up a decided stand in favour of it, the opposition would collapse like a castle of cards. He must apologize if he had spoken unfairly of the Leader of the House, for whom he entertained a sincere respect; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in his position on this question. He felt deeply convinced of the importance of the Bill to his country; and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not have experienced some strong emotions if, after attempts had been made night after night to strangle a measure in which he was deeply interested, he had found the Government going into the Lobby with the opponents of the Bill just at the moment when its promoters thought they had purchased its safety? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding what had happened, to give full and fair facilities for discussing the Bill now before the Committee. If he did not do so, the feeling of exasperation in Ireland would be intense amongst Conservatives, amongst Home Rulers, amongst men of all Parties and of all Creeds.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he readily believed that the hon. and learned Member for Louth had not intended to be personally offensive. At the same time, he considered that the attack which he had made upon the Government was an unfair attack. The Government had said, that if certain Amendments on the Bill were accepted, they were prepared to give facilities for its discussion. They had already, to some extent, done so; and their willingness to afford facilities was by no means exhausted. They intended, as soon as they could conveniently do so—and he hoped it would be within a reasonable time—to place a day at the disposal of the promoters of the measure for its further discussion. While saying so, he must again protest against the idea that they were bound to remain there and to assist in keeping a House together for the mere purpose of talking up and down on every subject under the sun in connection with this measure, and it was this feeling which led him to vote as he had done. He had already said—what, indeed, he had throughout stated—that he thought there should be a full and fair discussion of the Bill; but he could not make any more definite promise than that which he had just given. No one who knew what the state of Public Business was, and how utterly impossible it appeared to be to get on with Supply as fast as could be desired, would expect him to go further than he had done in regard to a Private Bill.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, it was because he knew very well the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in endeavouring to facilitate the progress of a Bill which met with such obstruction, that he felt it his duty not to ask them to place another day at the disposal of the promoters of this measure until some progress was made with it. He recognized the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was placed; but if he were to accept the general promise of the right hon. Gentleman, that a day would be given as early as possible, he would accept a pledge which, in the present state of Public Business, would only amount to this—that the subject would come on again some time in June, and in those circumstances, the facilities which the Government could offer would be practically worthless. The Bill had been discussed over and over again, and what he wanted was to make some progress with it. At the present time, he thought the Committee might make some progress; and he asked the majority to carry out their own wishes, and to make some headway with the measure before making another appeal to the Government. On the other hand, if the Government would take up the Bill and treat it as their own, of course the responsibility of its progress would be taken away from its present promoters. Probably that would be the course most consonant with the dignity of Parliament, after the House had so often expressed its opinion in favour of the measure.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had declared that he had made an unfair attack upon the Leader of the House. He had been perfectly startled at that statement. In the observations which he made, he commenced with the most emphatic admission that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intended to keep not only to the spirit but to the letter of every promise he had made; and, because he had ventured to say that on the present occasion the right hon. Gentleman had been inconsistent in going into the same Lobby with the opponents of the Bill, he had fallen under the chastisement of the hon. and gallant Baronet. He submitted that the hon. and gallant Baronet was not justified in the language which he used. No one had a greater respect for the Leader of the House than he had, and he had never made any imputation upon him except to say that he had been inconsistent.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he must really object to a discussion as to the conduct of Members of the House being raised at 4 o'clock in the morning. If there was to be a continuation of the Sitting, let hon. Members at least address themselves to the despatch of Business.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he should say a few words upon the general character of the Bill, quite undeterred by what had been said as to stale and vamped-up arguments by the supporters of the measure. His view of the measure was, that it was a monstrous delusion. He overheard his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) remark, that this had been said a hundred times—a remark, in reference to which he thought himself justified in saying that his hon. and learned Friend had been guilty of a considerable amount of exaggeration, for the criticism to which exception was taken had not been used 10 times in the course of the present discussion. The Bill was introduced for the purpose of closing public-houses entirely on Sundays, on the ground that drunkenness was more prevalent in Ireland on that than on any other day, and that the vice was more rife in the large towns than in the country districts. These being the grounds on which the Bill was introduced, its promoters had accepted a proposal, made by the Government, which would exempt from the scope of the Bill the five largest cities in the country. He did not think any good could be attained by continuing the discussion at five minutes past 4 in the morning, and therefore moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Joseph M' Kenna.)

MR. HERSCHELL

was not desirous to continue the discussion, but it was clear to him that a more important principle was involved in it than anything contained in the Bill. It was clear that unless a stand was made against the principle, and unless means were taken by the House to put a stop to the practice, it would be in the power of a minority, numbering not more than a dozen Members, to defeat any Bill, not by arguments, but by the adoption of a policy of obstruction. It might seem unreasonable to go on with the Bill, after the offer which had been made by the Government; but he feared that if further persistence with it was now desisted from, the same tactics of opposition; would be repeated on another occasion, and he should, therefore, oppose the Motion to cease from now proceeding with the Bill. The House of Commons was supposed to be a deliberative Assembly, whose decisions were the result of argument, and he should not be a party to any course which could lead to the conclusion that the majority were to be overborne by a small minority, whose only argument was a resort to, and a straining of, the Rules of Procedure.

MR. MURPHY

said, he did not believe the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had the remotest idea of making progress in the discussion of his Bill when he proposed, at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning, to go on with it. All the hon. Member wished was to induce the House to pass the measure without discussion, and in that he had been disappointed; as he had, also, in his desire to force the Government into giving a day for the consideration of his proposals. He had no objection to the Government acceding to the demand for a special day; although, he thought, no single argument of any weight could be stated in favour of the Bill, and that no answer, in the shape of either fact or argument, had been, or could be, given to the reasons which had been urged in opposition to it. The Bill was read a second time within a few days of the commencement of the Session, on the understanding that the discussion of its principle should be taken on the Motion to go into Committee upon it. That Motion came on unexpectedly on a Wednesday, owing to a collapse of some of the other Business on the Paper, and the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, seeing that its opponents had not arrived in the House, moved to report Progress immediately the Chairman had taken the Chair, and the Preamble had been postponed. He, therefore, stated his reasons for objecting to the Bill when the Committee was resumed; and, though he took up some time, it was only in the statement of facts and arguments, for he had never spoken in that House merely in order to waste time. The debate on that occasion lasted for about eight hours, and, in the end, a division was taken upon the main principle of the Bill; after which—at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning—it was, not unnaturally, proposed that Progress should be reported, on the ground that no efficient progress could be made at, or after, that hour. He, for one, was certainly surprised on that occasion, to hear it charged against those who had criticized the Bill, that they were acting the part of obstructionists. The hon. and learned Member, who had strongly supported the Bill (Mr. Sullivan), alleged on that occasion that its supporters included all classes and all ranks of the Irish people, from Home Rulers of the most pronounced typo to the strongest Conservatives. This statement was made in eloquent sentences, so constructed as to produce a strong histrionic effect; but what were the facts? The Bill had been introduced on several occasions, and Petitions had, from time to time, been presented against it. Four years ago, the signatures were 50,000 in number; in 1876, the number had increased to 70,000; last year there were 104,000 signatures to the Petitions presented against it, and this year the number was 235,000. He failed to see how, in the face of these facts, it could be said that the people of Ireland were in favour of the measure. As a matter of fact, it was very well known, though the fact was not admitted, that the people of Ireland were not in favour of the measure, and had never once asked for it. The supposed demand for legislation of the kind was the result of systematic action by the paid agents of a Society, who had procured a number of signatures which could not be said to represent the community at large. He could not conceive under what plea those hon. Members, who knew the tastes and habits of the Irish people, were to be branded as a pitiful handful of men; who presumed to raise their voice against that of those whom, in fact, they represented, and whose wishes were to them perfectly well known. He could, if he chose, tell how the Memorials in favour of the Bill had been got up, and how the paid agents to whom he had referred endeavoured to bring influence to bear upon Members of the House to induce—or, more correctly speaking, to compel—them to support the Bill. He remembered few instances in which a Private Bill had received as much assistance as this one had from the Government; and therefore he could not admit that its promoters had any right to complain of having been harshly treated in the House. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon would not further persist in opposing the Motion to report Progress, but would be content with the progress that had been already made, and the assurance that the Government would give further facilities for proceeding with the measure on a future day. When a proper occasion arose, he should be perfectly willing to enter upon a discussion of the details of the Bill, which had not as yet been settled, and to accept any decision at which the Committee might arrive.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was as anxious as his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) to get through the present Sitting; but he could not, as yet, abandon the hope of making some progress. His hon. Friend stated that his arguments against the Bill never had been answered; but, if this were so, it only showed that those arguments were not very convincing, as, in spite of them, a large majority of the House had decided in favour of the measure.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 72: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 123.) [A.M. 4.30.]

[Mr. RAIKES here left the Chair, and was succeeded by Mr. BRISTOWE.]

Motion made and Question, put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 78: Majority 43.—Div. List, No. 124.)

MR. SHAW

thought that the supporters of the Bill, having increased their majority on the last division, might possibly be in a good humour, and, as the day had broken, disposed to let them go away. He, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman report Progress. He thought that the proposal of the Goverment was a most reasonable one. They had offered another Government day for the purpose of making progress with the Bill. As far as he knew, there was no intention that night to oppose the measure. ["Oh, oh!"] Allow him to explain. If the Bill had come on immediately after half-past 12, the intention was to discuss the Amendments that stood on the Paper, and he really believed that a number of them would have been got through. But he thought it was most unreasonable, at half-past 2 o'clock, when they were thoroughly tired out, to have been asked to enter upon the consideration of these Amendments. It was said that sufficient had been heard of the Amendments already. Well, he had an Amendment on the Paper that had never been mentioned at all. He considered it a very important Amendment, and it was, that in case the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland was passed, the public-houses should be open for the sale of intoxicating liquors not to be sold on the premises. He had not the slightest doubt, that if the Gentlemen who were promoting the Bill would accept the proposal of the Government and take a night, they would get through the measure. He might say, for those opposing the Bill, that they did not wish to obstruct it; but they did not intend to have it thrust down their throats at half-past 2 in the morning, when it was perfectly impossible for them to consider it in the agitated state in which they were. He hoped there would be no objection to let the unseemly wrangle come to an end.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw.)

MR. WADDY

said, they could not help seeing by that time what was the intention of the Gentlemen who were opposing the Bill. They had been told a great many times that half-past 2 was too late an hour to commence; but, between then and the present hour, they might have discussed one or two of the Amendments; and if, instead of giving constant opposition to any discussion at all, Gentlemen, who said they were so anxious for discussion, would let them have a little, they might get away about mid-day—because, with regard to several of them, till midday they were prepared to sit, in the belief that the question at issue was whether or not the minority was to override the will of the majority of the House. He did not mean to indulge in personalities, and he wanted to make a suggestion, in all good humour, by way of throwing oil on the troubled waters. It was perfectly clear that giving a day would do no good, because precisely the same thing would occur again; and, unless the minority were to triumph over the majority in this matter, it appeared to him that there was only one thing to be done, and that was for the Government to take up the Bill, or, failing that, to fight it out on the particular lines on which they had entered. Of course, one did not expect the Government to take up their opponents' Bill, and, if this were a Party question, it would be a very unreasonable proposition to make. But, inasmuch as it was not—inasmuch as it was a question upon which the House of Commons had already clearly and definitely expressed its opinion—he thought the Government could very safely and fairly take it up. He believed that such a course was by no means without precedent. Therefore, he would venture to suggest to the Government, whether it was not possible to come to some compromise with the hon. Member for Roscommon, whereby not merely facilities should be afforded—which was a general expression, and very illusory—but the passing of the measure would be secured this Session. Otherwise, they would continue to have, what had been very properly called by an hon. Gentleman behind him, an unseemly spectacle.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not hold out the slightest hope that the Government would take up the Bill. He did not wish to occupy the time of the Committee at that hour of the morning by repeating what he had himself said; what the right hon. Gentleman who had preceded him in the Office which he now held had several times said; and what had been frequently repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he thought it was necessary, after what the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) had said, to repeat once more that the Bill was, in no shape or form, one of which the Government had expressed any approval. He had several times said that he disapproved very strongly of it; but he hoped the Committee would do him the justice to believe that, notwithstanding his strong disapproval of it, he had endeavoured in every way in his power to carry out the undertaking into which the Government entered. That undertaking was that they would afford facilities for the discussion of the measure. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon, with the candour which always characterized him, said boldly that he did not want any discussion at all, but that what he desired was to pass the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) had said that until the Government undertook to adopt the measure, it was useless to proceed with the discussion. That appeared to him to be a strange termination to a speech which invited the Committee to proceed. He hoped the Committee would bear in mind the warning of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would not embark on endless discussions of this kind. It was observed just now that the tactics of the opponents of the Bill were to talk it out whenever it came on; but he thought that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had scarcely been fairly met. He understood that hon. Gentleman to say, that if this discussion were adjourned and an evening was placed at the disposal of the promoters of the Bill, he had reason to believe that it would be brought to a, conclusion. If the hon. Gentleman were distinctly to say that he had reason for what he had stated, he (Mr. J. Lowther) thought that, in the present disposition of the Committee, it would carry some weight.

MR. SULLIVAN

Will the hon. Member state that he has it in his power to make that proposal?

MR. SHAW

said, he considered that three or four of the Amendments to the 1st clause would necessarily narrow themselves down to one; and he was quite certain, so far as most of them were concerned, that they did not wish to obstruct the progress of the Bill. He supposed it was one that would now go through. If the Government would give the promoters a day, he did not see why they should not get the measure through. That was all he could pledge himself to.

MR. MURPHY

reminded the Committee, that he had already said that, so far as he was concerned, he was perfectly ready to go into a fair discussion of the principal Amendments on the Paper, and to abide by whatever decision the Committee would arrive at. If an evening were given for the discussion, he could see no difficulty in having these Amendments disposed of.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, he had by far the most important Amendment on the Paper. In fact, it comprised within it the other Amendments; and he thought his hon. Friends would be quite prepared to allow his Amendment to test the opinion of the Committee. He could say, with his hon. Colleague, that he was not animated by any desire to obstruct this measure; but he did not conceal from the Committee that at half-past 2 in the morning he was not in a position to bring his Amendment before them in the manner he should wish to do.

MR. GRAY

thought it was a lamentable thing to see a minority of Irish Members opposing, in the manner they were doing that night, a Bill promoted by the Representatives from their country of every Party. He thought it was also a lamentable thing to see the Representatives of the Government aiding and abetting in that opposition; and, after the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, which was a distinct encouragement to the opponents of the Bill to carry on their opposition, he held that the promoters were called upon to proceed with the measure that night, and to con- tinue to do so until the Government abandoned their present position of supporting the minority in the factious opposition which they were offering to it.

MR. KING-HARMAN

ventured to think that the position taken up by hon. Members who sat on the Treasury bench was that in which independent Members found themselves. He, for one, was very much in favour of the principle of the Bill, while unable to accept the whole of its provisions; but he had voted against his hon. Friends on the other side, on the ground that the present was not the time to bring forward a measure of this grave character. As a junior Member of the House of Commons, he strongly objected to have a Bill of any description shoved down their throats by the action of a tyrant majority at an hour of the morning when they were not competent to discuss it. The proceedings of that night had been likened to those which took place on a particular occasion last year; but he would remind the Committee that the minority then was one of five or six, while, in the present instance, it had been more than half the majority in every case. He should continue to vote against proceeding with the Bill at so unseasonable an hour.

ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMONSTONE

said, he had not been against the Bill from time to time; but he must certainly say that he opposed it when it was brought on at half-past 2, on the ground that that was not an hour at which to attempt to proceed with the measure.

MR. O'CLERY

said, that if they considered that the last time the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) spoke on the Bill he occupied 2 hours and 35 minutes, and that the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), on the same occasion, spoke for 2 hours and 45 minutes, they would immediately see what these hon. Members were capable of doing when they said that they intended only to speak on the merits of the measure. Therefore, to leave the Bill to be dealt with after their fashion, would be to postpone its passing indefinitely. If he were a Member of an Irish Parliament in Dublin, he should consider it his duty, if the present state of circumstances were to arrive, to call on the majority to protect itself and the legislation of the House; but, in that House, where there were English and Scotch Members, he could not think of calling upon the majority to act in that way. He must say, however, that they were striking at the principle of national self-government for Ireland by their conduct that night.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had taken no part in the recent divisions, though he must confess that his not having done so was a certain exercise of forbearance on his part, as he did not approve of the Bill. At the same time, it must be evident to everyone that the Committee had got into a very unpleasant position, from which it was desirable to escape; and, with that view, he suggested that the promoters of the measure should rest satisfied if they could obtain an assurance from its principal opponents that when it was again brought forward they would not be parties to what might be called factious opposition.

MR. BRIGGS

said, the honour and dignity of the House seemed almost to have been forgotten by the occupants of the Treasury bench. The principle that a minority should trample upon the expressed opinion of the House could not be allowed. It had been said that the Bill was being thrust down the throats of hon. Members; but it appeared to him that the measure took a good deal of thrusting, more particularly when their throats were dry ones. He was not personally concerned in this struggle, so far as Sunday closing was concerned; but he was anxious that the right and dignity of the House, which the Government appeared for the moment to have abandoned, should be maintained.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

thought that the hon. Member who had just spoken had been a little too severe in his strictures. On more than one occasion, a measure which had been supported by a majority of the House had been met with strenuous opposition by a minority. Bills introduced by the Government themselves, to which they attached the greatest importance, and which were really necessary in the public service, often met with such repulses from minorities as hon. Gentlemen in charge of the measure before the Committee had experienced on this occasion. Individually, he agreed that it was the duty of every Member to maintain the dignity and authority of the House as much as possible; and it was only when a minority was of such weight as to carry a certain amount of conviction with it, that he thought it became a question whether such fighting as that in which they had been engaged was consistent with the proper conduct of Business. The Government, through the Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had stated distinctly that they were prepared to give facilities for the passing of the Bill, but that the period when those facilities would be offered could not be now fixed in the state of Public Business. It had been clearly promised, however, that when the necessary Business of the country was sufficiently advanced, as much time as the Government had at their disposal would be given for the further discussion of this Bill. More than that could not be expected. The Government had taken the proper course in the interests of the public service; and it could not be said that they had overlooked the expressed opinion of the House, because they desired to put an end to a wrangle on the subject. He had seen many such wrangles; and he did not remember any that could be said to have given satisfaction to those who had taken part in them. Ho appealed to the promoters of the Bill, whether they were really advancing the measure by prolonging the present Sitting; and he did so all the more readily, that he was in favour of their having a trial of a system which they believed to be desired by the greater part of their countrymen.

MR. W. H. JAMES

could not see why the time of the Committee should be taken up in this manner. The Bill must pass; and he appealed to its opponents to recognize the inevitable. He could not but direct attention to the state of the Government bench, and ask where Her Majesty's Ministers were?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that to expect Ministers, who had the duties of the country to attend to, to sit up all night in connection with a discussion like the present, was preposterous and unreasonable. He was sure they were all weary of the position in which they found themselves, and he begged to ask the hon. Member for Roscommon whether he saw any chance of arriving at a satisfactory solution of the difficulty? He hoped the hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept some reasonable suggestion which would put an end to the present dead-lock.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was most anxious to end the difficulty in which the Committee was now placed, and allow hon. Members to go home, although he had been kept out of bed himself longer than any Gentleman present. The Chief Secretary had asked him to accept some proposal, or to make some suggestion. As to a proposal, something had been shadowed forth by the right hon. Gentleman himself. He did not exactly know what it was; but they had not had a word from the opponents of the Bill that they were willing to accept it. Was the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) willing to accept it? [Major O'GORMAN: I will accept nothing.] As to a suggestion, he had suggested, some hours ago, that the Committee should deal with the 1st clause of the Bill, and that then Progress should be reported.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he should oppose the Bill in every way he possibly could. It was a Coercion Bill on the non-electors of his country; and it was not asked for by those who were interested in the matter. He would not allow a single Amendment to pass without a discussion and even a division.

MR. ONSLOW

thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated the promoters of the Bill very fairly; and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen, after fighting so long, would now think it time to go home to bed.

MR. WADDY

did not see why all the compromise should come from the one side. Why should the minority not give in, and agree, at all events, to discuss some of the Amendments? Hours had been wasted in obstruction; surely it was now time to do some business. He did not approve of the reflection which had been made upon the absence of Ministers. He did not think it could fairly be expected that the Government should be largely represented on the Treasury bench at that hour of the morning.

MR. MONK

said, he had no doubt that a majority of the Irish people wished this Bill to be passed; but he could see no hope of making any satisfactory progress at this hour of the morning (5.30), and hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon would give way. He would have had a chance of bringing his Bill forward at a practicable hour, but for the opposition which was offered by certain of the Irish Members to the making of progress in Committee of Supply.

MR. SHAW

suggested that the Committee should come to a decision upon the first Amendment of the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Collins), which would clear the way for the second Amendment, which really embodied the opposition to the Bill.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, a discussion upon any one of the Amendments would in no way facilitate the passing of the Bill, because any hon. Member could put them upon the Paper and raise a discussion upon them again. No practical progress would be made until the clause had been put from the Chair, and as soon as that had been done he should be perfectly willing to report Progress. They did not want a night for discussing the Bill merely, but they wanted one for passing it. For the Government to give a night, which would be wasted in discussion, would be giving nothing at all.

MR. M. BROOKS,

after remarking that he had been in the House for close upon 18 hours, said, he felt it to be his duty to assist in passing, in a modified form, a Bill the principles of which had been affirmed by the House. It was, however, useless to attempt to make any further progress at that hour, and he would suggest that his hon. Friend in charge of the Bill should now give way, promising him that if he did so, he would use his influence to prevent any further opposition to the principle of the Bill, and that he would assist him in passing it during the current Session.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon, who, as an old Member of the House, would appreciate the importance of obtaining such an undertaking, would accept the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Dublin, and the assistance which he had promised to give on the subsequent occasions when the Bill might be before the House.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, it was precisely because he was, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, an old Member of the House, that he could not accept the offer of the hon. Member for Dublin. Old birds were not to be caught with chaff; and, as no fair offer had been made to him, he could not then consent to do what he might have done four hours earlier. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) might go on, on the next occasion, precisely as they had done on this, and therefore he could not consent to give way.

MR. MURPHY

repeated, that he was extremely anxious for a full and fair discussion of the remaining principle, or fragment of a principle, contained in the Bill. He used the phrase advisedly, because the Bill was framed for the purpose of bringing about a total closing of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays, and that had been given up by the promoters agreeing to the proposal of the Government to except five of the chief towns in the country from the Bill. This being the present position of things, he thought the measure deserved and required a full and fair discussion, and this would not be possible at 6 o'clock in the morning. Surely, if the supporters of the Bill chose to abandon its main principle as far as five of the principal towns in the country were concerned, there should be afforded a full opportunity for considering the matter in reference to other towns and populous places in Ireland.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not seem to perceive the real point which was involved in this debate, which was, whether a few men should or should not be allowed to override all the principles of Parliamentary Government in their desire to defeat a Bill which was before the House. More than one division had, on previous occasions, been taken on the essential principle of the Bill; and the real question now was, whether the Government, having apparently abdicated the management of the Business of the House, measures should not be taken—the proceedings of the night having been highly educational in this respect—to devise a means of putting down obstruction of the kind which the Committee had witnessed. He might say that, although he had disapproved—and continued to disapprove—of the means employed last year to overcome the peculiar opposition offered to the South Africa Bill, he had always maintained the principle that the will of the majority must be allowed to prevail.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the principle of the Bill having been affirmed last year by large majorities, the Government ought to have taken up the question with a determination to settle it, private Members not having had afforded to them facilities for passing the Bill themselves. The consequence of this was, that the Members in charge of the Bill were compelled to ask the House to proceed with it at unreasonable hours, for it could not possibly be passed into law without discussion, as there were several important matters of principle involved in it. It was, in his view, an unconstitutional proceeding to threaten—as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney)—a minority of the House with pains and penalties, because they asked that opportunities should be given for the discussion of an important proposal for a change in the law affecting the liberty of the whole Irish people. As far as he was personally concerned, he should be strongly inclined to refuse a single penny of Supply to the Government until they had either taken up this Bill, or promised to give facilities for its full and fair discussion. On the present occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had certainly shown himself to be an Obstructionist—to use a word which was now frequently used in the course of their proceedings.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not allow what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman to pass uncontradicted. To say that he had deceived the Committee and had acted obstructively against the Bill was altogether contrary to the fact, and he thought he might appeal to the recollection of the Committee for not being in error when he made that statement. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government should place time at the disposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon to enable him to carry his Bill. He thought the hon. Gentleman could not have been present throughout the discussion, or he would have known that an undertaking was repeatedly given by the Government that such facilities should be afforded as he thought would fully carry out his suggestion. Now, he really did not like to make suggestions, since they did not seem to meet with acceptance; but he thought the hon. Member for Roscommon had set his heart on carrying the 1st clause of the Bill; and, as he understood, sought to do no more. He had now to make a suggestion to its opponents—namely, that they should allow the hon. Member to do that. They would then be in a better position for discussing the Bill fully when it came up again.

MR. MELDON

observed, that the Chief Secretary never said he would give such facilities as would secure the passing of the Bill. He stopped just short of that. Had he said that, the whole obstruction would have been at an end. The opposition was, in fact, first started by an answer he gave to a deputation that waited on him, and a speech he made to a second deputation. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had since sought to undo some of the mischief he then did; but he charged him with inciting the small minority against the majority. He admitted there was no analogy between this case and that of the South Africa Bill; but the present obstruction was infinitely worse. There was no excuse for protracted discussion now, because this Bill had been for four years thrashed up and down. Let the Government say that the Bill should pass this Session, and all opposition to it would cease.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, he had been occupying himself in going quietly through the Amendments on the Paper relative to the 1st clause, and he found that, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks), which he had agreed to withdraw, they were all directed to the principle of the clause. Now, he wanted to know why these Amendments could not be practically brought together, and the whole question they raised be discussed on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill? He did not think that course would involve any sacrifice of principle, and that the hon. Member for Roscommon would be very willing to agree to it.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

remarked, with reference to the charge against the Government that they had encouraged opposition to the Bill, he wished to inform the House that its opponents would have made just the same resistance to it had it been a Government Bill. He knew personally that a large majority of those whom it affected were opposed to it, and he should continue his opposition to the last.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought the hon. Member for Roscommon had met the opponents fairly, and should be allowed to make some little progress.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, the hon. Member did not appreciate the force of the Attorney General's proposal. Were it accepted, they would be giving up the whole opposition to the Bill.

MR. GRAY

thought the Government should reply to the charge of having encouraged opposition to the Bill, the responsibility of which he now wished to fix on them.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had frankly avowed his objections to the Bill. He still thought some compromise might be come to, and he did not abandon all hope that it would.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 61: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 125.) [A.M. 6.30.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O'Gorman.)

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not persist in that Motion. It might be that this would be the last occasion on which they would have an opportunity of addressing themselves to the principle of the Bill. ["Divide!"] What had they been doing all night but dividing? He did not think they ought to divide without discussing the principle of the Bill. He would advise hon. Members who took the view that this measure ought not to be suddenly and rashly passed, to consider that it had been a long time before the House, and that there would be future opportunities for discussion. He really thought that, before they went again to a division, they might have a couple of hours' discussion as to the merits of the Bill.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, there was one way in which they might come to some arrangement. They really wanted to discuss a question of principle involved in one of the Amendments to the 1st clause; and if the Government would give a day for that purpose, they would be prepared to enter upon the discussion, and they would not take a very long time. But they were not in a condition to introduce an Amendment of so much importance to the Committee at that hour of the morning. The Government had offered to afford facilities. He took it that what was meant was that they would find a day for the hon. Member for Roscommon. Let that be agreed upon, and they would only move one Amendment to test the opinion of the Committee upon the question, whether exemption was to apply to the whole of Ireland or not? That was a fair proposition, and he hoped it would be accepted by his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, it appeared to him that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Downing) was a very singular one. He proposed to do in Committee what ought to be done on the third reading of the Bill—namely, to reject it. He proposed an Amendment to extend the principle which it was intended should apply to the five principal towns of Ireland to the whole of the country; and such a proposal was tantamount to moving the rejection of the Bill.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, the hon. Member was mistaken with regard to his Amendment. It did not extend to the other parts of Ireland the exemption proposed by the Attorney General for Ireland in the case of the five large towns; but limited the hours during which public-houses might be open on Sunday from 2 until 5.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

remarked, that the fact of the matter was, that the Amendment in question would make the thing perfect nonsense. It was utterly inconsistent with the whole principle of the Bill. It had been stated, over and over again, that the question might be discussed upon the clause, as amended, being put from the Chair; and there was no reason whatsoever for refusing to accept the proposal made by the Attorney General for Ireland, unless it was a desire to obstruct the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. M'Carthy Downing.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 60: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 126.) [A.M. 6.45.]

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, he feared there was no use in reasoning or arguing with the supporters of the Bill. A very fair proposition had been made to them about half-past 2 o'clock; but they were now as determined as ever to make no concession. Therefore, he thought they had better fight on until 4 o'clock in the evening. He begged to move that the Chairman leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

MR. BRIGGS

said, there was a proposition made a short time ago which he should be sorry should be lost sight of. It was a little difficult to follow the course of the discussion; but, as far as he recollected the proposition, it was this—that an Amendment should be moved to the 1st clause, and that, having disposed of it, a division should be taken upon the 1st clause, and that then they should report Progress.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

did not think that was the proposition; and, as there was some misunderstanding about it, he might, perhaps, be allowed again to make a suggestion, because it was just as well to consider—though it was rather late in the day to do so—what was the Preamble of the Bill, and what was the 1st clause. They must recollect that what was going on there would be criticized outside. The Preamble of the Bill stated that— Whereas the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland is prohibited during certain hours on Sunday, and it will be for the public benefit to extend such prohibition to the whole of that day. That was the Preamble, and the 1st clause was the one which proposed to cast into a form of law what the Preamble stated. The whole of Sunday was what was dealt with in the 1st clause of the Bill. What he had ventured to point out was, that all the remaining Amendments to the 1st clause were not so much Amendments properly so-called as attempts again to discuss its principle from new points of view. He was not saying that at all to provoke any opposition, or suggesting it in any hostile way; and he thought that possibly there might be a question as to whether some of these Amendments could be put at all—whether they did not conflict with the principle established in the earlier part of the clause, which had already been affirmed. But, however that might be, he passed it by. He desired to point out that the effect of reporting Progress, after adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Roscommon, would be to leave it still open to hon. Gentlemen to attack or discuss the principle of the clause on the Question. "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." He thought it would be only reasonable that the 1st clause, with the Government Amendments, should be put from the Chair, and that Progress should then be reported. There must be a little give-and-take in all human affairs.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped that the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be adopted, as perhaps the fairest compromise which could be arrived at in the circumstances.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

objected to the proposal of the Attorney General for Ireland. It seemed to him, that if that proposal were acted upon, hon. Members would be precluded altogether from making any Amendment whatever in the clauses of the Bill.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he desired to remind the Committee that, in accepting the exemption of the great towns, the promoters of the Bill had not also contemplated concessions to the rural districts.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major O' Gorman.)

The Committee divided—Ayes, 30; Noes, 59: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 127.)

[Mr. BRISTOWE here left the Chair, and was succeeded by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON. It was now 20 minutes after Seven of the clock of Tuesday morning.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair,"—(Mr. French,)—put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the last Amendment, to add the words "Provided, That such prohibition shall not apply between the hours of two o'clock in the afternoon and five o'clock to populous places, and to towns with populations exceeding three thousand inhabitants."—(Mr. Collins.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 59: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 128.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair,"—(Major Vaughan Lee,)—put, and negatived.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Shaw.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 58: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 129.) [A.M. 7.40.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O'Gorman.)

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

said, it appeared to him most unseemly to have spent so many hours in an attempt to force the opinions and the will of what certainly was a majority, upon what was just as certainly a very strong minority, at a time of the night or morning, when it was utterly impossible to have a profitable, or in any way satisfactory, discussion of the questions involved. He hoped the present course of proceeding would be abandoned; because, if division after division were taken until the Speaker took the Chair at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the Bill would be lost for the Session.

MR. DALRYMPLE

said, that he had supported the Bill up to the present time, in spite of, rather than in consequence of, the speeches of some of its promoters, and should continue to do so; but he saw nothing to be gained by attempt- ing to press it further at the present moment. He should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the measure, whether he hoped to tire out the opponents of the measure, or whether, if he did not succeed in that, the proceedings of the night through which they had passed would be likely to help the Bill in its future stages? Was it not much more likely that the Bill would be prejudiced by the feeling of disgust which must be created, even in those who were friendly to it?

MR. MELDON

thought the Government were bound, in vindication of their own character and reputation, to insist upon this Bill being passed in the present Session. He thought the supporters of the Bill had acted in a very conciliatory manner in consenting to the exemption of the five towns from the operation of the Bill. Unless the opposition went much further, they were willing to make the further concession of giving up the 2nd clause of the Bill, and allow the law relating to bonâ fide travellers to remain in its present form.

MR. KING-HARMAN

said, this was the first time he had heard anything of conciliation on the part of the promoters of the Bill. The Committee was not now discussing the principle of the Bill, but whether they should be forced into a discussion at a most unseemly hour of the day. The scheme of the supporters of the Bill was premeditated. Two days ago, he read in a Dublin newspaper a statement that relays of Members were to be arranged in support of the Bill, which was to be brought on and proceeded with at any hour of the day or night.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he recognized the spirit of conciliation as far as the 2nd clause in the Bill was concerned; because, if that clause had been agreed to, it would have created a sort of licensing Star Chamber. The Bill had been fairly fought by its opponents, towards whom some consideration should be shown at that hour (8.30) in the morning.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, a good deal had been stated with regard to concessions; but it appeared to be forgotten that all the concessions up to the present had been made by the supporters of the Bill, and none by its opponents. The question simply was, whether the majority in that House should yield to the minority, and on that point he was not disposed to give way.

MR. J. LOWTHER

admitted, that except in asking the Committee to go on with this Bill at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning, the hon. Member for Roscommon had conducted this Bill with great discretion and judgment, and he did not think hon. Members who opposed the Bill quite realized the considerable character of the concession which he had consented to make—a concession which, coupled with some few others of a minor character, would put the Bill in a satisfactory condition. He hoped the Committee would not insist upon taking up further time in vindicating the rights either of majorities or minorities—both of whom undoubtedly possessed rights—but would try to find a modus vivendi between the two. If the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) would accept the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland, the Bill could be debated properly; and certainly the Government would, as far as it could do so consistently with the demands made by its own Business, afford facilities for such debate.

MR. MURPHY

said, the dilemma in which they found themselves was due entirely to the action which had been taken by the promoters of the Bill. He would suggest that one of the Amendments to the 1st clause should be discussed, and that the division upon it should settle the fate of the other Amendments. To accept the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland would be to prevent a discussion of any of the Amendments.

DR. WARD

held that the course taken by the opponents of the Bill was one virtually of defiance of the cardinal principles of Parliamentary government.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

suggested that after the discussion which had been suggested, any of the Amendments on the Paper could be received on the Report and disposed of to the satisfaction of all concerned. If this did not prove sufficient, there would be yet another opportunity for discussion on the Motion for third reading.

MR. MONK

said, he could not think either side more factious than the other. Something had been said about the tactics announced in a Dublin newspaper as likely to be pursued by the promoters of the Bill; but he paid no regard to them, because he did not think the House would ever allow itself to be bullied into passing any measure.

Question put, and negatived.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.) [A.M. 8.30.]

MR. HERSCHELL

hoped the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) would be accepted, as he thought it would meet the views of all the opponents of the Bill to take a discussion and decision upon one of the Amendments to the 1st clause.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, he did not think there was any one of the Amendments that could be accepted by both sides.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 58: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 130.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be now added."

MR. MURPHY

again suggested, as a compromise, that only one of the Amendments to the 1st clause should be moved on a day to be given by the Government for the purpose, and that the opponents of the Bill should now agree not to discuss more Amendments than that one. If there should be any breach of that agreement—which he felt sure there would not be—then he, and those who agreed with him, would support the 1st clause. They would, of course, be at liberty to move any Amendments they pleased on the Report. He hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon would see his way to accepting the suggested compromise as a way out of the difficulty in which the Committee found itself.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

thought the suggestion of the hon. Member afforded the basis of a fair compromise.

MR. KING-HARMAN

objected, under any conditions, to the House being dragooned into passing this or any other Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

hoped that they had at length reached daylight, and that some such suggestion as that which had been made by the hon. Member for Cork would be adopted.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, it must be clearly understood that the suggestion only referred to the 1st clause, and its adoption would not preclude any hon. Member from moving Amendments on the other clauses.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, he would not accept any mere verbal suggestion. They must have the litera scripta, and then there could be no mistake about it.

MR. BIGGAR

supported this view.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was absent from the House when the proposal was made, but he was disposed to agree in the view taken by the two hon. Members who had last addressed the Committee, because it was most important that there should be no misunderstanding as to the terms of the compromise. He always entertained a distrust of vague understandings.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he preferred the original proposal of the hon. Member for Roscommon; but if the one which had since been made was more likely to meet the views of the Committee, he should be quite willing to assent to it. He thought an agreement to suit everyone could easily be arrived at.

MR. MELDON

hoped there would not be any written agreement. It would be adopting the practice of a Petty Sessions Court in the House of Commons, to have two of its Members meeting outside and drawing up agreements of the kind and in the mode suggested.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had distinctly guarded himself from expressing approval of any written agreement; but what he had suggested was that, as the hon. Member for Roscommon did not happen to be present when the proposal was originally made, and there appeared to be considerable confusion upon the subject, it should be reduced to writing with a view to being fairly put before the Committee, as was invariably the practice with Resolutions and Amendments which formed the subject of arrangement between the promoters and opponents of Bills or Motions.

LORD LINDSAY

said, he, for one, should decline to be bound by any such agreement as was suggested.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, if it was the general wish of the Committee that such an agreement should be made, he would not stand in the way of it; but he must not be understood as approving of it.

MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING

expressed disappointment at the fact that the hon. Member for Roscommon seemed indisposed to agree to any reasonable arrangement.

MR. BIGGAR

thought the hon. Member for Cork should draw up the terms of the suggestion, and let them be read to the Committee. Even then, Members now absent would not be bound by them.

MR. W. HOLMS

thought the suggestion to have a written agreement was lowering to the dignity of the House.

MR. MURPHY

further explained, that his proposal was for all the Amendments to the 1st clause save one to be withdrawn, and a debate and division should be taken on that Amendment at the next Sitting of the Committee. As already proposed by him, no other Amendment on the 1st clause to be moved until the Report. He thought this was an arrangement which no one could fail to understand.

THE O'CONOR DON

wished to know whether the opponents of the Bill would consider themselves bound by the agreement?

MR. MURPHY

said, he assumed that the parties to the agreement would be in honour bound by it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.