HC Deb 21 May 1878 vol 240 cc438-47

Order for Committee read.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Penalties for selling of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours extended to whole of Sunday).

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he had most unfortunately informed several hon. Members that this Bill would not come on that night. Perhaps he had no right to repeat a private conversation that he had with the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill; but he certainly gathered from him that the Bill would stand over until the debate on the Eastern Question had finished.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that the House was in Committee on the Bill, and that the Question was, whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that what he intended to state, and what he did state, to hon. Members who had asked him the same question was, that he would not proceed with the Bill on Monday unless the Eastern Debate terminated before half-past 12. He thought there ought not to be much difficulty in making some progress that evening. The clause under discussion was one to which there was no objection. On the next clause the hon. Member for County Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had put down an Amendment to omit that clause altogether. Although the promoters of the Bill were unwilling to abandon the clause, yet, if hon. Gentlemen really wished it, they would consent to its being struck out. With regard to Clause 5, there were two Amendments proposed—one by the hon. Member for County Limerick, and the other by the hon. Gentleman the Member for County Cork (Mr. M'Carthy Downing). He would assent to both of those Amendments, if they, on the other hand, would allow the Bill to be dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner. But when they came to Clause 6, there was an. Amendment to it proposed by the hon. Member for County Sligo (Mr. King-Harman). It would be hardly fair to ask the House to go into the consideration of that Amendment after the very serious question that had been debated in the House that evening. Therefore, he proposed to report Progress when the Committee arrived at Clause 6, the first clause that was of importance. As he had made these concessions, he hoped hon. Members would allow the Bill to proceed quietly.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

observed, that he had not meant to allege anything like a promise on the part of the hon. Member for Roscommon not to bring on the Bill that night. He was only refreshing his recollection of a conversation which he was sorry he had mentioned to others. He certainly understood the hon. Member to say that he had not intended to proceed with the Bill until the debate on the Eastern Question was concluded.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

remarked, that they had been told that no fresh Bill would be taken up at a later hour than 12 o'clock, and, certainly, no such obnoxious Bill as this ought to be taken. They could not enter into a discussion on four Amendments and four new clauses at that hour. He, therefore, begged to move that Progress be reported.

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

THE O'CONOR DON

hoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion, because, as he had before said, he had accepted the Amendments as they stood. He did not really understand what it was that the hon. Member wished to be discussed.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

trusted that the hon. Member for County Limerick would not occupy time by his Motion, when the hon. Member in charge of the Bill was prepared to give way to his Amendments. If there were any difficulty, it would arise on later clauses, and it was obviously occupying the time of the House unnecessarily to move to report Progress under the present circumstances.

MR. FAWCETT

could not support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for County Limerick. He hoped the Motion to report Progress would be withdrawn, for nothing could be more fair and reasonable than that which had been offered by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). The hon. Member for Roscommon stated that he did not like the Amendments to Clauses 4 and 5; but yet he would accept them, and had offered himself to move to report Progress when they arrived at Clause 6. In their own interests, therefore, he asked the opponents of the Bill not to alienate some of their English supporters by opposing what was offered by the promoters of the Bill.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

remarked, that there were four Amendments on the Paper before that of the hon. Member for Sligo. If the hon. Member for Roscommon were willing to accept all those, yet that of the hon. Member for Sligo remained. He would withdraw his Motion, only on the condition that the hon. Member for Roscommon was willing to accept those four.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that he had already stated that there was no Amendment to the clause then before the House. On Clause 4 the hon. Member for County Limerick had given Notice to omit it, and to that Motion he had assented. To the Amendments of the hon. Member for Cork, on Clause 5, he assented; and also to the alteration on the same clause, proposed by the hon. Member for Limerick, and when. Clause 6 was reached, he proposed to move that Progress be reported.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Question before the Committee was that Progress be reported. If it were withdrawn he should then put the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

asked leave to withdraw his Motion to report Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. R. POWER

said, that the Committee would remember that Sunday, in Ireland, was a most remarkable day. Sunday was a day on which great events took place. They were married, they were buried, and they were born, on Sundays. The hon. Member proposed that any policeman should, at any hour of the day or night, be permitted to enter into any public-house in Ireland. It must be remembered that the people who held public-houses in Ireland resided in them. In Scotland it was different, for the people who held public-houses there had also houses of their own. In Ireland, they were not so wealthy as to be able to afford both a public-house and a private residence. By this Bill, the policeman in Ireland was to be allowed to enter into any public-house whenever he chose, and if he found any person drinking he could arrest them. He had thus to draw a wise distinction between a person who was a guest of the publican, and the person who was merely a customer. If a person from a distance—a cousin, niece, brother, father, or mother—came to visit his or her relations, a policeman could enter into that house and arrest such person for drinking on Sunday. Therefore, he moved the rejection of this clause. The ground on which he did so was, that it would have the effect of placing licensed traders in Ireland—especially in the county towns and small districts, who resided in public-houses—at the mercy of the policeman. If a man was found in a public-house, drinking with the publican—no matter whether he was a brother, or any other near relation—he would be liable to be arrested and fined £10. And a policeman might at any time of the night enter into a public-house in order to detect the brothers of a publican of the crime of drinking. He wished to preserve the liberty of every Irishman, no matter who he might be, and for that reason he moved that this clause be rejected.

MR. SULLIVAN

observed that the penalties in question were now in force under the provisions of another Act, and were for selling, or exposing for sale, or being, at any prohibited hour, in any public-house on Sundays. If public-houses now opened within prohibited hours on Sunday, then the evils which had been spoken of took place.

MR. MURPHY

could not go the same length as the hon. Member who had moved the total rejection of the clause. He could understand that there ought to be a justification for giving such power to a policeman, in order to detect whether "selling, exposing for sale, or keeping open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday" took place; but when the section went on to give the same power in case of anyone being present in or upon any such premises during any hours or time on Sunday, he thought the provision very unnecessary and objectionable. The Committee would recollect that this was an Act for the total closing of public-houses in the country districts of Ireland on Sundays. It would also be remembered that those public-houses were the places of residence of the families of the occupiers, and that if these words were to be made law no one present with the publican, however bonâ fide, would be safe from arrest by the policeman from the mere fact of his being in a public-house. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would allow a Proviso to be struck out, which subjected anyone who was found drinking with the publican in his house, on Sundays, to penalties.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that he believed, according to the ordinary procedure of the Committee, it would be incompetent for his hon. Friend to effect the alteration proposed; because the Question had been put, that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Before he could consent to the omission of the words proposed, it would be necessary for him to look over the existing Acts to see what effect the omission would have. But he might state that he agreed in the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Cork, and would undertake to look into the matter with the view of carrying out, if possible, upon the Report, the suggestion made.

SIR. JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon would be perfectly safe in agreeing to have the words struck out of the clause.

THE O'CONOR DON

repeated that he would see in what way his hon. Friend's object could be best attained, although he could not consent to the alteration at that moment.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

The hon. Member for Roscommon has become, forsooth, the arbiter elegantiarum of this House. I beg to say that if my hon. Friend withdraws his Motion, I will make a Motion to report Progress. This Bill is a cursed Bill! It shall not pass while I can obtain a Teller to oppose it.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is my duty to state that the expression used by the hon. and gallant Member, as applied to the Bill, is one which is not in Order.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed that the expression had been used before in the House to Amendments, and he thought if rightly applied to them, it could not be wrong to apply it to a Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member is not in Order in adverting to what passed on previous occasions in the House. If the words, which I took from the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, had reference to the Bill, they are unparliamentary, and the expression must be withdrawn.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I think, Sir, we have very few liberties in this House now. I will not withdraw the expression. It is a cursed Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

I will point out to the hon. and gallant Member that in this House it is customary to accept the ruling of the Chair. I must again ask the hon. and gallant Member to retract the expression.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I have never done anything in this House to oppose its will; but I have very strong feelings upon this subject—the strongest that can possibly be entertained, and I am determined that this Bill shall not pass. [Mr. SULLIVAN: Withdraw!] I shall not at the instance of the hon. and learned Member for Louth withdraw the expression; but I do, Sir, in deference to the decision of the Chair. I was elected for the City of Waterford for the purpose of bringing back Home Rule to Waterford, and if I cannot do that I shall cut off this right hand before I bring back a coercion Act to Waterford. I repeat, I withdraw the word I made use of, because you, Sir, have called upon me to do so; but I decline to do so because I have been called upon by Members who come here to support coercive measures.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford whether he would take the decision of the House upon the whole clause?

MAJOR O'GORMAN moved the rejection of the clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 26: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 143.)

Clause 4 (Construction of Act).

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

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that if he understood the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) aright, he had accepted his Amendments to that clause.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, that if that were the case he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN

I should like to explain that the clause has been withdrawn.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that the hon. Member for County Limerick had proposed to omit this clause. When the Question came to be put that that clause should stand part of the Bill, he did not intend to oppose its being struck out.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, that he did not withdraw his Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford would withdraw his Amendment after what had taken place.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I have no objection to withdraw any Motion on the distinct understanding that this wretched coercion Bill for Ireland shall have an end for this evening at least.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause negatived.

Clause 5 (Exemptions).

MR. O'SULLIVAN

I am sure my hon. Friend will have no objection to my Amendment, in page 2, line 32, to leave out from "liquors" to the end of the clause, and insert "on arrival or departure of trains."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

I think that the Amendment I have now before the Committee is one, the principle of which, as to the refreshment of bonâ fide travellers as described in the Licensing Act of 1874, has been accepted, and that I need say no more than that the hon. Member for Roscommon will not object to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Commencement of Act).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(The O' Conor Don.)

MR. KING-HARMAN

would appeal to the hon. Member for Roscommon to go on with the Bill that night, as they had gone so far. They were kept there night after night to listen to the discussions on that Bill, and as they were there now, they might just as well sit later.

THE O'CONOR DON

remarked that the promoters of the Bill would be most willing to go on then. But he would remind the hon. Member that the other night he refused to allow the Bill to proceed, and moved to report Progress. He himself had stated to the opponents of the Bill that, when Clause 6 was reached, he would move that Progress be reported, and, of course, he was bound to adopt that course; though, for his own part, he would be willing to sit there for the next three hours.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

entirely objected to go on then.

MR. KING-HARMAN

said, that what he objected to was having this Bill commenced at a late hour. But he could see no objection to their now going on and discussing the Amendments to the present clause, which were very simple.

MR. O'SULLIVAN

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo would recollect that there had been a distinct understanding that they should not go on, and he hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw his Motion.

MR. KING-HARMAN

said, that because there was an understanding between the hon. Member for Roscommon and other hon. Members the Committee was not bound.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that there was no question of a private arrangement between any hon. Members. It was a distinct promise made to the Committee that Progress should be reported at a certain stage, which promise the hon. Member for Roscommon was loyally endeavouring to carry out, and to which course he trusted the Committee would now consent.

DR. WARD

asked, if it were convenient to go on then with the Bill, at half-past 1, when they had spent so much time over it the other night? He protested against the adjournment of the House at that early hour, seeing that they had been able to sit till 9.30 A. M. the previous week, when time was merely wasted. He thought the House might go on for an hour or two.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, when an hon. Member who had charge of a Bill stated that at a certain stage he would move to report Progress, hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the Bill would have a right to go away on the faith of such an assertion.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, at the commencement of the discussion, he had stated if his hon. Friend who opposed the Bill would allow it to proceed to a certain stage, he (the O'Conor Don), accepting the Amendments proposed up to that time, would propose to report Progress. His hon. Friends who opposed the Bill had carried out their part of the agreement; they had not met him with any obstruction, but had fairly executed their part of the bargain. That being so, could he be asked to break his word, and to try and press the Bill on, despite his having pledged himself to move to report Progress. If the passing of the measure depended upon going on, he could not be guilty of such a breach of faith.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the hon. Member who had last spoken had not made his arrangements for reporting Progress in a hole-and-corner fashion. He had openly stated in that House what he intended doing, and those who objected to such a course being pursued should have protested against it at the time.

MR. KING-HARMAN

did not wish to detain the Committee, if it was not thought desirable to go further that night; but he must say that he and others had been given to understand that at whatever time the Bill came on it would be proceeded with. A great number of hon. Gentlemen remained, much against their wills, in order to see the matter through, and when the Bill was reached, then, for the first time, they were informed that it was only proposed to proceed as far as a certain clause. He would not press his Motion for proceeding with the Bill, if the Committee did not wish it; but he asked the hon. Member for Roscommon to fix a date to discuss the Bill, and finish it, instead of bringing hon. Members down to the House, night after night, waiting about for this measure to come on.

DR. WARD

said, unfortunately, he was not in the House when the hon. Member for Roscommon gave the undertaking not to proceed with the Bill beyond a certain clause. As he had promised that, he (Dr. Ward) by no means desired to see him break faith with the Committee.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, on the occasion of the all-night sitting of the previous week, his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon stated at the commencement that if any reasonable progress were made that night, he would not press the Bill further. But nothing was done on that occasion, whereas they had now made the reasonable progress of which his hon. Friend then spoke; and he was, by the course he was pursuing, carrying out his promise not to proceed to an undue length with the Bill at any one sitting.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday.

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.