Clause 6 (Commencement of Act). (Hansard, 24 May 1878)

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that they had told the supporters of the Bill that if it should come on at any fair and reasonable hour they would be willing 704 to discuss it, but if not they would not go into it. It was 4 o'clock this morning when they had got to bed, and the Chairman would not therefore be surprised that he begged to move that he (the Chairman) do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. They had a Scotch Bill on Tenant Right being brought on by Scotch Members which had had to give place to the Sunday Closing Bill, although it was of greater importance than the latter, on which Irish Members were so much divided.

§ MR. ONSLOW
supported the Motion, thinking it most unreasonable that they should have to go on with that discussion after being so late the night before. The hon. Member for Roscommon put it down night after night, and they had to come down and go into the Amendments. He hoped the Committee would not allow the Bill to be forced down the throats of an unwilling minority—a very strong one. He trusted the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would agree that they should all go home at a reasonable hour, and take it some day next week before 12.30.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, that the hon. Member was very fond of telling him to take the Bill on "some" day, without telling him on what day, and knowing full well that he could not command a day. It had been very well understood that the Government had, by the very fact of placing the Bill where they had, announced their intention of giving facilities that evening for proceeding with it. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given him an assurance that evening that at 11 o'clock Supply should be reported, and that they should be able to get into consideration of that Bill in Committee. [Major O'GORMAN: It is half-past 12 now.] The discussion on the Votes, had, of course, prevented the Government from doing so; and he did not mean to accuse them of a breach of faith. The result, however, was, that the Government had given him no facilities that evening. But was the hour at which they had arrived an unreasonable hour for taking 705 up a Bill in the hands of a private Member? The course altogether pursued with regard to that Bill from the first moment showed the object which its opponents had—they had always been saying that they were anxious to give it a fair discussion—but the whole course of their conduct showed that they wanted to defeat it that Session, as previously, by dilatory Motions. And he had again to appeal to the Committee to stand by him in resisting them; and to show that the Bill of a private Member was not to be thus placed at a disadvantage. It would be perfectly impossible for him to consent to the proposal made to him.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could not allow what had been said to pass without comment. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to stop Supply at 11 o'clock.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he had intended to state that he did not in any way blame the Government.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was very glad indeed that he had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, because the Committee would be aware that what had happened had not been the fault of the Government.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
hoped that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not persist with the Motion to report Progress. They had a great deal to do; and, although they might not have a division on the Amendment, they might clear away some objections and difficulties, and perhaps come to a decision on a future evening.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
thought they might very well have a discussion on that clause—it was not too late.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Sullivan) would not allow any discussion whatever. They should accept no terms whatever from those people. The Half-past 12 o'clock Rule was then being violated. They might be told that they were in Committee, and therefore it could not be considered an opposed Bill. Well, they would oppose it.

§ MR. MURPHY
said, that the Amendment was a very important one, and might be fairly debated; it was only reasonable that they should have a discussion upon it. [Interruption.] The 706 hon. Member for Roscommon, having had a discussion upon it, would feel it his duty to go further; but, if he persevered, he (Mr. Murphy) should feel it his duty to go into the Lobby against him.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
had told the supporters of the Bill, that if it came on at a reasonable hour they would discuss the Amendment, and he intended to keep his word, and did not intend discussing it at that unreasonable hour. If half the trouble taken with that Bill had been taken with the Land Bill, they might have had it passed before that. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon, it was a very remarkable thing that the Bill of the hon. Members for Down and Downpatrick had passed without opposition, although it had been fourth on the Paper, and that before them had been eighth. The present Bill was then second on the Paper. He did not see why it should be forced on any more than any other Bill.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, that the reason why the Bill occupied a higher position on the Paper was that the Government had undertaken to afford facilities for its progress. It certainly was perfectly true that, owing to circumstances to which he need not refer, they had reached the Bill at a later hour than had been expected; but the hon. Member for Roscommon had very fairly stated that the Government had not been responsible. The hon. Member for Limerick county (Mr. O'Sullivan) had an Amendment on the Paper which he was anxious to discuss; and the hon. Member for Sligo county (Mr. King-Harman) had one which the hon. Member for Roscommon had admitted to be important. It might be very reasonable that they should discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for Limerick, because the hour really was not a very late one, and then report Progress, so as to enable the important question raised by the hon. Member for Sligo to be debated.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that if the hon. Member for Roscommon was satisfied with the suggestion made, he would then give in and withdraw his Amendment.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, that it would be simply an absurdity. Anyone who knew the character of the Amend- 707 ment knew that such a proposal was mere trifling.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
could not see that it was trifling. If the hon. Member did not accept the proposal, he must go to a division.

§ MR. KIRK
considered that if the Government had broken faith with the hon. Member for Roscommon, still men had not a right to stop out of their beds till 6 in the morning to watch that Bill; and, therefore, the hon. Member for Limerick county should press the matter to a division.

MR. MACARTNEY
said, that some hon. Members appeared to forget that the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule applied to Bills in their early stages—not when, in Committee.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
repeated his offer to the hon. Member (the O'Conor Don), that he should agree to report Progress after the next Amendment had been discussed, which was his own. He moved, at page 2, line 34, after "on," to add "the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty," and leave out the date named in the Bill. As the clause stood, the Bill would come into operation very shortly after the close of the present Session of Parliament—namely, on the 1st of October. That would be too sudden for so important a change as that which the measure contemplated. There were many parts of Ireland where the people would know nothing about the alteration in the law, and they would be taken by surprise if the Bill came into operation so soon. There were other reasons for postponing its operation. At present, the people resorted on the Sunday to places of recreation within two or three miles of the towns. These places of recreation would be shut up by this Bill, and the proprietors compelled to make fresh arrangements. He held it to be wrong to close these all at once, and, therefore, it was only fair and reasonable to give them an opportunity of getting rid of their little stock-in-trade, and setting up in some other business. He resisted this piece of class legislation in the interest, not of the wealthier traders, 708 but of the poorer ones, including those who were non-electors. Why, he asked, were hon. Members pressing this Bill forward, night after night, in this way? It was, he believed, because a re-action was setting in against the Bill in the country, and they knew that if they did not push the measure forward in the present Parliament, they would have no chance of success with it in the next. No mention was made by hon. Members from Ireland of this Bill at the last General Election, excepting by two Members for the city of Dublin, both of whom had lost their seats. Only a small portion of the Home Rule Members had voted for this Bill in the course of the year. The greatest support it had received came from the Sabbatarian North of Ireland, where the promoters of the Bill were obliged to get Scotchmen to advocate the measure, because they failed to obtain Irishmen for the purpose. Outside Parliament the Bill had the support of the wealthy classes; but was it supported by the men who made use of public-houses in Ireland on the Sunday? He hoped the Committee would accept the reasonable Amendment he proposed.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
suggested that the 1st of January, 1879, should be the date fixed for commencing the operation of the Bill. It would not do to force this measure unduly upon the people, as he feared in that case it might lead to some turmoil. A great majority of the humbler classes had been opposed to the principle of the Bill. It appeared a hardship to those classes that legislation of this kind should be promoted by those who enjoyed all the advantages of well-filled cellars, or of clubs. It was well known that this measure had been promoted by an organized committee, employing salaried persons to travel from place to place; and they 709 had been compelled to engage the services of Scotchmen to advocate a measure for Ireland. Experience did not commend the Forbes-Mackenzie Act to the notice of Parliament, except on Sabbatarian grounds; for, not with standing the passing of that Act, the consumption of intoxicating liquors in Scotland had very greatly increased during the last 25 years. If this Bill were passed for Ireland, in all probability it would lead to more drinking in private than prevailed at the present time. He could not support his hon. Friend's Amendment, because it seemed to be trifling with the Committee to propose postponing the operation of the Bill to so distant a day. He, therefore, should be prepared, at the proper time, to move that the date be the 1st of January, 1879.

§ MR. R. SMYTH,
while agreeing that the alteration suggested by the hon. Member who had just sat down was a reasonable one, pointed out a grave objection to it. The whole matter had been considered at great length in the Select Committee last year, and they had, with the entire concurrence of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), agreed to fix the date as it now appeared in the Bill, for this reason, that it corresponded with the date of the annual licensing sessions. If the date were altered to the 1st of January—two months after the holding of those Sessions—it was obvious that great inconvenience would arise with respect to licences taken out by publicans. As the question had been fully gone into by the Select Committee, he thought it would be much better, and far safer, to adhere to the date they had fixed.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
remarked, that when the Licensing Bill of 1872 was passed, 12 months' notice was given to the trade of the contemplated change in the law. However, to show that he was willing to meet his hon. Friend in this matter, he would alter his Amendment, if they agreed to fix the 1st of March, 1879, as the date when the Bill should come into force.

§ MR. O'CLERY
observed, that the interest which one side appeared to have in the operation of this Bill was so obvious, that the only way to meet their opposition as it deserved to be met was by tiring it out.

§ MR. MURPHY
thought the offer of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) might very well be considered; because there would be no difficulty in the publican getting a licence next October to last until the 10th of March, 1879, instead of the 10th of October following.

§ MR. KIRK,
referring to the remark of the hon. Member for Wexford county (Mr. O'Clery), that parties who brought forward Amendments, and who were opposing the Bill, did so because they had an interest in the liquor traffic, said, the same observations had been made on more than one occasion, and, amongst others, by an hon. Gentleman opposite. He repudiated all these assertions.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member of the Question before the Committee.

§ MR. KIRK
was sorry to be out of Order, but his feelings had carried him so far as to transgress the Rules of the House. The Amendment before the Committee ought to be adopted. The Bill was a confiscatory and revolutionary measure; and he deprecated its sudden, enforcement—for there were many small traders, selling whisky and beer in the country districts, who would require some time to enable them to dispose of their businesses, which this Bill would so seriously disturb. They might be compelled to emigrate to America. Two months' notice was insufficient. For his part, he hoped it would be a long time before the labourer brought home his bottle of whisky on a Saturday night, for consumption on the following day, because he could not get it on Sunday. The Amendment, far from being of a trifling character, was a fair concession.

THE O'CONOR DON
had no particular preference for the date named in the Bill, excepting the fact that the annual licensing sessions met in October, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was of opinion that the 1st of October was the time at which the operation of the Bill ought to commence. It would be a disadvantage, and not quite fair, to place upon a publican the necessity of taking out a seven days' licence for a whole year, when, according to this Bill, the licence would operate only for a few months. Unless he heard some strong reasons for the proposed alteration, he would not be justified in consenting to change a date, which had 711 been chosen by a Select Committee under the guidance of a Cabinet Minister.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
referred to a remark which an hon. Member had made to him, that it would be just as well to pass the Bill and let the people feel it at once. That observation did not altogether commend itself to him, because he would rather that the people should accept the measure, if they really needed it. He urged that the date should be the 10th of March next.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, he wanted to ask the Committee this question. If a Resolution were proposed, declaring that after a certain day, Messrs. Bass and Allsopp should sell no more of their goods, was there one single Member of that House that would vote for such a measure, and agree to confiscate the property of those gentlemen? And, after all, was this not a confiscatory Bill? Were the poor people who, under the ægis of the law of England, had furnished themselves with a certain quantity of liquor for sale—were they to have their property confiscated, without any trial whatever, and simply because a parcel of Home Rule Coercionists—persons who came there from Ireland as Representatives, but who were never elected in 1874 for the purpose of passing such a Bill as this—and who, if such a measure had been proposed by them in 1874, would have been whipped out by their constituencies? In 1874 there was no such question brought forward as one for the closing of public-houses on Sunday in Ireland; but since that period, these miserable people had come to the House asking for a Bill. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman, will see that the expression, "those miserable people," is scarcely a proper one to use. I trust he will withdraw it.

§ MAJOR O'GORMAN
said, he would withdraw it. Another adjective had now gone from them, and he did not know where they should get adjectives when they wanted them. He said so the other night, and was misrepresented in every paper in London. He said they should soon find themselves left without any suitable terms for expressing their thoughts on such matters. They prayed every year for freedom of speech, but would soon be without any freedom of 712 speech at all. ["Oh, oh!"] He affirmed it. He repeated it. He said they were approaching a time when they should not be permitted a single adjective at all—substantives perhaps! The House was, in fact, becoming a school for teaching the use of substantives, since they must not express their thoughts with the help of adjectives. He said that these publicans were entitled to toleration. They had furnished themselves with liquors to be dispensed to the people of Ireland, according to Act of Parliament, and he asked this honourable Committee whether it was fair or just that they should be deprived of the benefit of their capital? He reiterated that if this Bill had been one to confiscate the property of Messrs. Bass and Allsopp, there was not a Member of that House that would vote for it, except the Home Rule Coercionists.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he thought it would be expedient for the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) to accept the Amendment. ["No, no!"] Well, hon. Members should remember that the Bill was a considerable experiment, in the absence of any certainty as to the feelings that would be excited when it came into operation. The hon. Member for Roscommon said he was comparatively indifferent, but that the 1st of October was preferred on the ground that these annual licences were then granted. Was that a substantial ground? Let them take the case of a man renewing his licence in October, with the knowledge that this Bill would come into operation on the following March. It would be optional for him to take out a seven days' licence, knowing that it would be operative for six days only after the Bill came into operation, or he could take out a six days' licence, and so, as it were, bring the Bill into operation at once. He had that option, and there was, therefore, no hardship; and, as there was no hardship, he wished the hon. Member for Roscommon would accept the Amendment.

§ MR. A. MOORE
hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon would not yield to the suggestion made to him. As to the "poor people" on whose behalf an appeal had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman), he would observe that this 713 Bill had been before the House these three years, and had only been defeated by the most monstrous opposition. If they did not bring it into operation in October, they would make complete confusion throughout the country. It was true, however, that the traders need not be wronged by taking out a seven days' licence.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
observed, that he was unable to see any argument in the remarks made against the Amendment. It was perfectly easy to arrange for the taking out of a six days' licence, to expire on the 10th of March. It had been put forward by one or two Members that the opposition to the Bill came from those engaged some way or other in the trade. He did not consider such remarks any argument in favour of the Bill; but as he was engaged in that trade, he wished to say he was neither ashamed or afraid of his business, no more than he was of his opinion or his politics, and he would add that it would be well for England, and for Ireland, too, if all her sons were engaged in some trade or profession, for then they would not have any idle cads living on the industry of honest men. Why could they not have such a six days' licence? When the Bill was passed in 1872, 12 months' time was given to the English trade, and they were now only asking the Committee to give six. He did not think it would be manly in him to see a branch of industry which had been licensed by the House trampled under foot without making some effort to defend it. There was not the least proof that drunkenness prevailed extensively in Ireland on Sundays, and this was not a temperance movement, but a purely Sabbatarian movement. He must press his Amendment, that the Bill should not come into operation before the 10th of March, 1879.

§ MR. MURPHY
wished the Committee to understand that no practical harm could result from the Amendment. No one could refuse to pay the Excise the amount of the licence, and if the Bill came into operation on the 10th of March, as the hon. Member for Limerick suggested, there would be no contention between the Excise authorities and the publicans. He might take out a licence on the 10th of March, and then could not come up again before the 10th of March following; but if he took out a six 714 days' licence, he would not be able to take advantage of the and bonâ fide traveller clause at all. No harm could be done, and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Roscommon that he should accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
thought that if the hon. Member for Roscommon had given his attention to it, he would accept the Amendment, as it really offered a permission to the trader to bring the Bill into operation in his own case as speedily as possible. If he took out a six day licence, he would be in the position of one placed under the Sunday-closing principle from the first moment of his licence beginning to run. If he did not do that, he would have to take out a full seven day licence, and the Act would come into operation when only half the licence had expired, and he would then be practically under a six day licence. It appeared to him that the hon. Member's Amendment gave the trader alternatives which covered the whole ground of the question. He did not wish to exaggerate appearances, but unfavourable signs had been manifested in Ireland with respect to the Bill, which he should be sorry to see realized; but he would warn the House against adopting this measure too suddenly, lest they should drive those whom it affected to form other organizations.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he should not be unwilling, personally, to accept the Amendment, but he did not know how far the opponents of the Bill would be disposed to appreciate this concession; and, moreover, he did not know whether the Attorney General would be willing to approve it from his own point of view.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
wished to say he could see no objection to the Amendment. It had, he thought, been satisfactorily explained that no practical inconvenience could arise from it.

MR. SULLIVAN
remarked, that his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy), who now supported the Amendment, voted in the Committee for making the Bill come into operation in October.

§ MR. MURPHY
Yes; but it was the October at the end of the year, not at the beginning. I so voted, because I thought the Bill should not come into operation before the trader had had a fair opportunity of exercising his busi- 715 ness during the time for which, he had paid his money.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman), to allow the clause to pass, after which Progress might be reported.

§ MR. A. MOORE
observed, that there were only two short clauses more, and that the Committee ought not to be brought down again for further discussions.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
thought the promoters of the Bill were pressing his Friends very hard. The Committee should be anxious to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the poor trader, which had already been referred to. He said, let this clause pass, and then let Progress be reported.

MR. E. POWER
said, there was no one who was more anxious to proceed with this Bill than he was; but it was most unreasonable that they should be expected to go on with it at that hour of the morning. This clause would raise a most important discussion, and he could not speak upon it in less than an hour and 20 minutes; and there were many others who were desirous of speaking upon the question. Hon. Members who had so much philanthropy and generosity, and who wished to see this measure adopted in Ireland, were anxious to see its beneficent effects extended to England, and finally to Japan 716 and other places; and, therefore, they would like to speak upon this clause. His constituents took great interest in this measure. When he was returned for the city of "Waterford, there were 13 candidates seeking for that honour. As the day of the contest drew near, they dropped off one by one, and only five went to the poll. Some hon. Member had said that this was not a test question at the last Election; but he declared most emphatically that, with him and his hon. and gallant Junior, it was made a test question. The representatives of the Sunday Closing Association waited upon them on that occasion, and they also waited upon three other candidates—one of whom was the present Member for the county of Waterford, another the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and the other had not yet found his way into that distinguished Assembly. Six of the candidates pledged themselves to support Sunday closing, and two said they would give no pledge, but would exercise their own opinion on the question, and these two candidates were returned. The Home Rule Member for the county of Waterford was a candidate on that occasion; but he was defeated. What did the Sunday closers do? They issued the following circular to the people of Waterford— We have to inform you that, if elected, the following candidates have agreed to support Sunday Closing:—James Delahunty, R. B. Osborne, and Edward Gibson. The Committee much regret that Mr. Power's and Major O'Gorman's replies are not favourable. He need not remind the Committee what was the just and happy result of that Election. It would not be fair to go into the main question at that late hour. He thought that even the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) could not comprehend so great and important an issue at that time of the morning. [Mr. SULLIVAN: It is quite early.] It was all very well to say "quite early," but he (Mr. R. Power) was positive the hon. and learned Member did not usually keep such late hours. If they were to be kept up till this time of the morning, night after night, they might as well give up going to bed altogether. This was a most unconstitutional proceeding—at all events, it was not good for the constitution—and, therefore, he must insist upon his right, and move that the 717 Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not want to interfere in this matter, but he could not help remarking that they had arrived at a point at which it was impossible to apply this Bill to England. The Preamble said it should apply to Ireland only, and there could be nothing in Clause 8 that they could object to. He therefore hoped that the Committee would not bring the proceedings of this House into discredit, simply by pursuing this course of dividing upon a matter to which they would eventually agree. The Committee also should have some regard for the comfort of hon. Members, and not go on in that way.

§ MR. SHAW
agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. It had been suggested that the clauses should be gone through and the new clauses left for the next occasion. He was told, however, that that proposition would not be accepted; but it was certainly the right way out of the difficulty.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not know that there was a doubt about the matter. He put it to the Committee whether that was not a fair compromise, and he certainly understood it had been accepted.

§ MR. MURPHY
understood that the suggestion that had been made was to be accepted; but now, to his surprise, he found that that was not the case. He should again ask the hon. Member for Roscommon, whether, if the 8th clause were passed, he would report Progress, or whether the promoters of the Bill intended to press the Bill further that night?

MR. SULLIVAN
thought that was too much. The offer of the compromise had been distinctly refused by the hon. Member for Cork's (Mr. Murphy's) own Friends.

§ MR. MURPHY
remarked, that there was not the slightest warrant for the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. He stated that he (Mr. Murphy) knew that the offer had been refused. The hon. and learned Member should take care how he charged a Member of that House with such a thing. He (Mr. Murphy) never heard that it was rejected, or did he know that it was rejected now. He was surprised to hear the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Louth.

MR. SULLIVAN
retorted that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Murphy) surely must have heard the stentorian voice of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford, who rejected the offer of compromise.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
wished to recall the compromise to the recollection of the Committee. It was a fair compromise, and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary agreed with it. He should propose that the Committee take the division on the 8th clause, and then report Progress.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he must recall to the attention of the Home Secretary that when this compromise was proposed it was refused by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford. Three divisions had been taken since, and yet in none of those divisions did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary support the proposal which he himself suggested as a reasonable one. That, in his opinion, was unexampled conduct on the part of an Officer of the Crown. The Government had appealed to the promoters of the Bill to accept a compromise, but the Government did not support the proposal. The promoters were, therefore, not in any way bound by the offer. No one felt more than he did the undesirableness of carrying on discussions of this character; but were they to be brought down every night for such discussions. He would ask the Committee whether it was not much better to sit there until they had got rid of the Bill than be dragged down night after night in this way?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
protested that the Government had done its best to facilitate the progress of the Bill.

THE O'CONOR DON
meant the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and not the Government.

§ MR. COGAN
did not make the proposal for compromise in concert with the hon. Member for Roscommon, so he was in no way bound by it. He certainly had observed, with great regret, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

§ MR. MARK STEWART
suggested that, as the Committee had got into a dilemma, it would be best to pass Clause 8, and put the Bill down as the first Order on Friday. That was a fair suggestion.

THE O'CONOR DON
would most gladly accept such a proposal, but he thought it was more than he could ask the Government to give him.

§ MR. P. J. SMYTH
did not understand the reflections that had been made on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The offer was accepted; but why should they be driven into the necessity of going so often into the division Lobbies? They were brought there night after night, but every proposal made had been rejected by the hon. Member for Roscommon, who now avowed his intention to force the Bill through that night. He appealed to the hon. Member for Roscommon to let the Committee accept the offer of the Home Secretary and report Progress.

MR. SULLIVAN
The compact was, that if the offer were accepted, the opponents of the Bill would withdraw their opposition; but the offer was rejected, and they had taken three divisions since, so that they could not now accept the proposition.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
insisted that what was a fair compromise an hour ago was fair then, and as sensible men they had better accept it.

§ MR. MELDON
supported the compromise. The Government had acted in a most reasonable manner. It was true that the offer had been rejected and three divisions taken; it was a different thing when the Government, to whom they owed something, made such an appeal. If it were necessary, however, to force this Bill through Committee, he would go with the hon. Member for Roscommon.

MR. COLE
was a supporter of the Bill, but he thought the suggestion of the Home Secretary was most reasonable. He did not think the Bill ought to be forced through Committee. He was anxious that the Bill should pass; 720 but there were hon. Members who felt strongly upon it, and it was unfair to press it too much.

THE O'CONOR DON
was sorry that when the offer was first made it was not accepted. He should like to say, with reference to the offer that came from the Government, that he hoped the Committee would on the next occasion discuss the new clauses. There really was only one clause of importance in the Bill and that had been disposed of.

§ MR. P. J. SMYTH
hoped no undertaking would be given by the Government. They all claimed the right of free discussion, and that was not to be infringed. A fair proposition had been made, and the hon. Member ought to accept the proposal and not attempt to impose conditions.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
had no objection to discuss the new clauses at any reasonable hour; but it was more than unreasonable to press them at this hour of the morning against the wish of a large minority, who deserved some consideration.

THE O'CONOR DON
did not feel justified in opposing the proposal of the Government; but, if he reported Progress after passing the 8th clause, they would have a fair claim on the Government to give them an opportunity of bringing the Bill on again at an early day.