HC Deb 30 March 1881 vol 260 cc231-48

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CARBUTT,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it provided for the closing of public-houses during the hours of polling at Parliamentary Elections. His object was to render all elections as pure as possible by providing that they should be conducted without riot or tumult. He had no doubt that hon. Members occupying the Opposition Benches were all as anxious as he could be that the elections should eventuate in the return of Gentlemen who represented the feeling of the whole country, without prejudice to any particular interest; and, there- fore, be reckoned on receiving their support. Of course, he did not count on receiving any support from any of the Gentlemen opposite who were connected with the brewing, the distilling, and kindred trades; but as regarded the publicans, he was confident the better class of them would be in favour of the Bill rather than against it. It was because of the non-existence of such a measure that several hon. Members, who had been returned to the House at the last General Election, were now no longer Members of it; and he believed that he (Mr. Carbutt) himself was the only Member who had been returned to the House by a poll taken in a town where all the public-houses were closed; and when he explained the circumstances of that election, and how they got over the difficulty of having open houses, hon. Members would, he thought, share with him the opinion that there should be some general rule on the subject. As a rule, the inhabitants of South Wales were a law-abiding people; but, at times of excitement, when political feeling ran high, the people of Newport used to be hurried on to acts of violence, so that the military had to be called out to put down the riot and the tumult. Indeed, at preceding elections several people had been killed. Under those circumstances, on the eve of the last Election, the Mayor consulted the magistrates whether something might not he done to prevent a recurrence of such disgraceful scenes, and they came to the conclusion that the best thing they could do was to shut up all the public-houses in the town during the day. That being so, they resolved to avail themselves of the provision of the Licensing Act, Section 23, Sale of Intoxicating Liquors Acts, 35 & 36 Vict., cap. 94, which enacted that two Justices of the Peace might order all public-houses to be closed during a Parliamentary election, if there was any ground to suppose that breaches of the peace might be expected, and that under a penalty of £50. Accordingly, all the public-houses were closed from 2 o'clock on the day of polling until the following morning; and the result was that the Election was conducted without tumult or disturbance. In 1868, when Sir John Ramsden contested the borough, the military had to be called out, and one or more persons were killed. In 1874, a sum of £400 had to be paid for the damage done by drunken rioters; whereas, at the last Election, there was not a penny spent in that way, there having been only a few windows broken. It was a curious sight heretofore to see all the windows in the main street of the town boarded up in anticipation of a riot. It had the appearance of a besieged city. He might be asked why the single example on which he relied was to rule the country. Well, he believed if hon. Members would read the Reports of the Election Commissioners recently published, they would come to the conclusion that they contained more than sufficient evidence to justify the passing of the Bill. It might be objected that the Bill included not only boroughs, but also counties. It did so, because the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General on the subject of corrupt practices at elections contained a provision that the polling places in counties should not be more than three miles apart; and he did not think that a man who had only three miles at the utmost to walk to the polling place needed to have the public-houses kept open for his convenience. The Oxford Election Commissioners reported that the evidence showed that on the polling day there was considerable drunkenness, and many breaches of the peace; and, further, that the least thing would have brought about a riot which would have been beyond the control of the civic authorities. Further evidence proved that large numbers of voters received beer before and after they had voted, that most of the public-houses were the property of one gentleman, and were used as agencies to secure his return, and that at nearly every public-house in Oxford drink was freely given away on the day of the Election. The Sandwich Commissioners reported that 71 public-houses had been engaged for the purposes of the Election, at a cost of £5 or £10 each; and the evidence showed that quantities of drink were supplied "to keep the mob quiet." In Knaresborough, where the voters numbered only 770, there were no fewer than 47 public-houses, and these were kept open for the purpose of supplying drink to the electors on the polling day. It might be said, too—"Why do you close public-houses during the hours of polling for Parliamentary Representatives, and not close them during the election of town councillors?" For his own part, he did not see the force of that objection, for there was nothing like the same excitement at a municipal election as there was at a Parliamentary one. He had had large experience of municipal elections, both as a town councillor and as the returning officer when Mayor of Leeds. Again, he might be asked if he had any precedent for the proposal, and his reply was that he had. In Canada, all the public-houses were closed from 7 o'clock in the morning until the close of the poll on election days; and in New York, on the day of the State Elections, the public-houses had to be kept closed all day. The Mayor of Oxford described the last Election in that city as a scene of drunkenness, noise, and shouting. The excitement was great, and the people hurried to the polling places before 8 o'clock, without their breakfasts; but when they got hungry they slipped into the public-houses unawares, drank beer or spirits on an empty stomach, and so got drunk. His object in bringing in the Bill was to take away temptation from the people. With respect to Chester, the Commissioners reported that the great weapon of Parliamentary warfare there was beer; that the Party who secured the most public-houses usually secured a majority of votes; that beer was lavishly given away on the polling day; that most of the voters refused to poll except they were treated, adding that there was in Chester a class of "professional treaters," who exercised their function as such very busily on polling day. One man supplied drink without stint all day to everyone who called at his house; and when he was asked to explain how he made up the amount which he charged to the candidate, he said he took stock in the morning before the poll commenced, and took it again when the poll was over, and charged for the quantity consumed, including all he had sold in the way of regular trade, which, in the case referred to, was a considerable fraud upon the candidates. He had no doubt the more respectable licensed victuallers would like to see everything of that kind done away with, as they did not wish to be held responsible for the malpractices of those who were engaged in the same trade with themselves. He hoped the House would come to the conclusion that he had given sufficient reasons why they should read the Bill a second time. He had endeavoured to make it as mild as possible. Some advised that he should go in for a strong Bill, and then give way, so as to secure as much as he really required; but he was not in favour of asking for more than was really wanted. He had endeavoured not to interfere with the private convenience of anyone; but some sacrifice should be made, and it would be a small one, as, on an average, a General Election only occurred every five years, and he did not see how keeping a man from drink on one day in that period of time could be described as robbing a poor man of his beer. He believed the closing of public-houses would have a very material effect in the direction desired. He had exempted railway refreshment bars and steamboats from the operation of the Bill; and, much against his will, he had also exempted the City of London, because London was a great commercial centre, where business men spent the whole day, and did not return home till the evening. Besides, it was generally believed that people in London took less interest in elections, and showed less excitement on those occasions, than they did in the country. If, however, it was the wish of the House that London should be included, he would be glad to do so. Referring to the Wigan Election, he said he understood that the colliers on strike had been supplied with free drink during the Election. ["Oh, oh!"] He would not go further into the matter, and was sorry if he had inadvertently offended. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Carbutt.)

MR. LITTON

said, he highly approved of the Bill, for when people drank too much beer they had a tendency to riot. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] Well, he (Mr. Litton) could not estimate the extent of the hon. and learned Gentleman's capacity; but he thought the Reports of the Election Commissioners, to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Carbutt) had alluded, afforded ample proof of the fact that, at times of a General Election, when Party spirit ran high, an indulgence in drink had a tendency to stir up strife; and he considered the provisions in the Licensing Act, under which the public-houses could be closed on such occasions, was an argument in favour of that principle being adopted as the basis of a general Act. The fact that the magistrates had a right, when apprehensive of disturbance or riot, to close the public-houses was in itself sufficient to show that a general law was required on the subject. Indeed, it seemed to him that the tendency of modern legislation justified the Bill of his hon. Friend. The only thing of which he was afraid was that sufficient opportunity had not been afforded the licensed victuallers to express their opinion upon the Bill. He was not at all sure that, as a body, they would be opposed to the Bill, for the compulsory closing of their houses on election day would free them from the risk and danger of certain pains and penalties arising from excessive drinking on their premises, and they would get rid of that liability by the surrender of the privilege to sell intoxicating drink on one day every four or five years. Another consideration was, the House would have another and a much better opportunity of discussing the question when they came to deal with the Corrupt Practices Bill of the hon. and learned Attorney General than they could have in discussing a measures brought in by a private Member. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give time to the trade to consider the Bill.

BARON DE FERRIERES,

in seconding the Motion for adjournment, admitted the desirability of closing public-houses during polling hours; but thought the matter was too important to be dealt with by a private Member. He also wished to point out that while he was in favour of the principle of the Bill as stated in the Preamble, the exemption of certain interests from the operation of the Bill by the 3rd clause greatly interfered with and nullified its principle. If a publican were to be allowed to keep his house open for the sale of non-intoxicants during polling hours, every facility would be afforded for the sale of intoxicants, which it was the object of the Bill to prevent. Again, the exemption of river steamers from the scope of the measure was likely to be abused, for many great towns had large rivers on which steamers plied; and the result of the exemption might be that on election days 20 steamers might be moored along the shore, and that drinking on a large scale might be carried on, while the public-houses were compulsorily closed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Litton.)

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, he could scarcely understand the motive of the Motion to adjourn the debate. He could have understood the proposal if it had come from someone who was favourable to the Bill, and would in that case have assented to it; but he could not accept it in the present circumstances, because he feared it was made in order to prevent any decision on the subject with which the Bill was intended to deal. He knew that there was a strong feeling in its favour in many parts of the country, and could speak from personal knowledge to the existence of such a feeling to a very large extent in Wales; and he was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed) to say that that feeling also largely prevailed in Cardiff. That he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) took as a test case. If a place like that, with a large and mixed population, was in favour of the proposal, it showed how desirable it was that the Bill should receive the assent of the House. He thought, however, the Bill was far from perfect, and required many alterations and Amendments. One obvious defect was the provision requiring all public-houses within any parish containing a polling place to be closed; whereas the polling place might be on the borders of one parish, and the public-houses in an adjoining parish—a few yards, it might be, from the polling place—were allowed to be open. On the other hand, there was no sufficient reason for closing public-houses which might be situate many miles away from a polling place simply because they were in the same parish. He also agreed with some other hon. Members that there were other objections to some of the details of the Bill; but he wished to see the principle of the measure, which was undoubtedly good as far as it went, affirmed by the House, after which it would be easy to cure any defects of detail in Committee.

MR. GREGORY

supported the Motion for adjournment, on the ground that it would give an opportunity for the careful consideration of the details of the measure not only by hon. Members of the House, but by the general public, who would be largely affected by the Bill. As far as those details were concerned, ho could only say that many of them were of a most unjust character, and. could not possibly be accepted in their present form, especially the provision which closed the houses in a municipal borough in which a county polling place was situated. Thus, in his own county (Sussex), the houses in Brighton, a town containing 80,000 inhabitants, and. having a polling booth in it, would all have to be closed, if there was a county election proceeding. A more monstrous proposal than that he never heard. The polling hours were now extended to 8 o'clock, so that poor people who had not a supply of beer upon their premises would be deprived of a generous enjoyment during the whole of the day, while any amount of drink might be sold on board steamers and at the railway stations. The Bill would, moreover, give scope for the most flagrant violations. He objected also to the exemption of the Metropolitan area. He could conceive no logical reason for excluding London, and yet including places like Manchester, Liverpool, or Leeds. It could only have been done to stave off opposition, in the hope of gaining the support of the Metropolitan Members for the Bill. He hoped the proposals of the Bill would be fully considered, if the debate was adjourned; but he desired that the Government should keep their minds open. It was also because he thought that the matter required further consideration in the interest of the publicans that he supported the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought he need hardly say that the subject proposed to be dealt with in the Bill was one to which the Government, who were not behind any other section of the House in wishing to put a stop to it, had had to give very careful consideration. The only question was how to attain that object; and he was sure every hon. Member of the House would agree that there was necessity for considering the subject which would be affected by the Bill. All would agree that the practice of corrupt treating which existed in Parliamentary Elections, and municipal elections too, was one that had pressed itself lately upon the attention of the public, and that no one could regard that practice but as an evil, and as a growing evil. He was not saying that as a censure on any particular class. The fault rested not only on the person in the trade who supplied the means of treating, but on those who provided the money for the treatise, and on those who encouraged the treating. It would, he thought, be a great evil if they were, while attempting to check the practice of corrupt treating, to proceed in a spirit of hostility to a trade, and inflict punishment upon them alone in order to put a stop to this Bill. It being the desire of all to stop corrupt treating, as injurious to the representation of the country and as evil in every way, it would be wise not to take any hasty, ill-considered action, which public opinion would not support. He did not believe for one moment that the promoters had any such object, but simply to remove corrupt treating, which was injurious. Those who had to deal with the question felt it was a matter which ought to be dealt with with great caution. Any prohibition that was contrary to public opinion was generally an evil, and was certainly not a successful remedy for what was desired to be corrected. In the case of this prohibition, it would affect not only the interests of the publicans, but also the convenience of the community. If this was to be carried out so as to be beneficial to elections and electors, the remedy must be in accordance to public opinion rather than against it. Without saying anything as to the provisions of the Bill before the House, if a measure severe in its consequences as affecting a portion of the community was to be passed, the responsibility ought to be borne by the majority of the House, above all, supported by the public opinion of the country. He believed that a right method of prohibition would meet with considerable support from those persons who were principally affected by it. He meant the licensed victuallers. Only a few hours ago he had an opportunity of meeting a representative deputation from that body; and he must say he never heard more reasonable views expressed by any persons than by those licensed victuallers, and that a majority of them would be prepared to acquiesce in any proposal that met with the approval of a majority in Parliament and in the country. The House would be greatly strengthened in its action if there was to be a decided public opinion expressed in the matter. When it had to deal with the question of all corrupt practices, amongst them corrupt treating, he expected there would be great difference of opinion as to the mode in which the evil was to be dealt with; but he was certain that that difference of opinion could only be solved by what was known to be the opinion outside. In these circumstances, he had to make an appeal to the hon. Member who had introduced the Bill (Mr. Carbutt). He expected that great advantage would result from the discussion; but he hoped his hon. Friend would not, while feeling he had done a good service, push this matter to a final vote that day. The views of the hon. Gentleman would not be furthered by taking a vote. His hon. Friend had also an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill bearing on this subject. What he (the Attorney General) had to say, not speaking for his Colleagues, was that when that Bill came on they would have the best opportunity for all practical discussion of the matter. Whatever they voted to-day, there must be a re-consideration of the question when the Bill for Corrupt Practices was before the House. When that Bill was under consideration, there would be the fullest opportunity for discussing and voting upon the subject; and their discussion and votes would be guided, to a great extent, by public opinion. He therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had heard with great pleasure the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He thought it was a wise advice, and he hoped those in charge of the Bill would follow it, and they would not suffer by it in the long run, inasmuch as there were important and varying interests to be considered in dealing with a matter of this kind. There were, in the present instance, three sets of persons who were very closely affected. There were, in the first place, the publicans. As far as the publicans were concerned, all he would say, at the present moment, was that if, for the general benefit of the country, the closing of public-houses on the day of polling was proved to be necessary, although it might affect the trade, the trade must give way to the general public opinion. But then it must be proved to their satisfaction that such a step was absolutely necessary. The second class affected were the general public. In a case of this kind, it was a great mistake to think that they were only dealing with the electors of a particular town on a particular day. It might be quite right that they should take every means to prevent corruption and treating so far as the voters were concerned; but there were many people who would be in the town in which the election was taking place who had no connection with the election, but whose business took them to large towns; and those persons would think elections a positive nuisance if they found, when they went there, they interfered with them in their ordinary business and trade. The Bill would do harm, therefore, to those who had nothing to do with elections. There was a third body of persons to consider, and that was the candidates; for he knew of no more miserable position than that of a man who went down to a constituency resolved to take every precaution not to offend the law, and who found, through no fault of his own, but of some agent, that his election was invalidated. All these were questions which must be taken into account, and they could not discuss the question without discussing it in all its bearings. He hoped that no attempt would be made to support the measure by certain hon. Gentlemen who held advanced views, simply on the ground that it was a step in the further direction they wanted to take, because to do so would, in his opinion, weaken their influence in both ways, and also cost them support, as far as the present proposal was concerned. There were many points of detail in which the present Bill was defective; and he hoped it would be determined to deal with the whole question of corrupt practices at the time when the Government proposals were fully before the House. He, for his part, would do his part in his place in Parliament to put down corrupt practices and treating. He thought that what had been revealed in connection with the last Election of corrupt practices in boroughs was a disgrace to the country, and the sooner such a matter was put a stop to the better for all parties. On a matter of that kind it would, however, be unwise for any Government to attempt to carry legislation beyond a point up to which they had the support of a majority of public opinion; and he, therefore, strongly urged the importance of using great caution in dealing with the matter. In that view ho hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Carbutt) would consent to the adjournment of the debate. He believed that when the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General became law, as he hoped it would with certain modifications, there would have been constructed a machinery sufficient to secure much greater purity of election than now existed.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he entirely concurred in the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir B. Assheton Cross), as to the adjournment of the discussion, in order that the matter might be better discussed on the general Bill. At the same time, it was very desirable that the opportunity should be taken just now to ascertain the mind of the House on the question; and when hon. Gentlemen had already given the opinion of England, Wales, and Ireland, he thought a Scotch Member should express the opinions of Scotland. He had no doubt that he was quite correct in saying that, in a matter of this kind, they would have the very general support of Scotland. Not that Scotland suffered more from the evils of drinking on election days than England did; but he thought that there opinion was more advanced on the subject than in England. There were two evils which required to be remedied by a Bill of this kind. There was not only corruption by treating at the time of an election, but there were evils which followed the election. In connection with this latter point, his only complaint was that the Bill did not go far enough. It proposed that the closing of the public-houses should cease after the hours of closing the polling. His opinion was that public-houses should be closed during the whole of the day on which an election took place. On those days the population was, to a large extent, in an unsettled state, and they resorted in large numbers to the public-houses after the voting was over, and scenes of disorder ensued. In America the public-houses were closed throughout the entire Union on an election day, and he had trustworthy testimony to show that the proceedings there were of an orderly description. In this matter he was not actuated, nor were his Friends actuated, by feelings of hostility to the trade. Their object was to secure the public good. He hoped his hon. Friend would agree to the adjournment of the debate; and he could assure the Government that if they proposed similar measures to those which had been suggested they would have the almost unanimous aid of Scotch opinion.

MR. CAINE

hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Carbutt) would accept the advice given from the Government Bench, and not insist upon a division. He (Mr. Caine) was glad they had had an opportunity of discussing that important question so early in the Session, without having to wait two or three months for the hon. and learned Attorney General's Bill. As for the unfortunate and unhappy candidates referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department as being defeated, there were others who had seen cause since the Election to regret their haste in self-congratulation, because they had been unseated as a consequence of public-houses being open. They had to look forward to a time—and he (Mr. Caine) hoped it would be five years hence—when they would be placed in the same position; and, therefore, he thought they should support a good measure for purifying elections without causing serious inconvenience to the public at large, or interfering harshly with the trade concerned. There could be no doubt that such a law as was here proposed would cause a certain amount of inconvenience in boroughs during an election; but the inconvenience caused to a few people for having once in six or seven years to take their meals without beer or spirits would be little as compared with that often suffered by many boroughs under the present system. The borough he represented (Scarborough) was, as a rule, as peaceable and orderly as any to be found in the United Kingdom; but at the last General Election, in consequence of the public-houses being open on the polling-day, all his windows were broken by a disorderly mob, and it cost him £14 10s. to have them repaired. Many other hon. Members could remember similar occurrences. He should never forget the picture presented by his right hon. Colleague (Mr. Dodson) on returning on his election day from meeting a drunken mob, for the right hon. Gentleman looked more like an ancient Briton than a Cabinet Minister, in consequence of being covered from head to foot with blue dye. On election days much greater inconvenience was suffered by the general public now than what would result from the passing of that Bill into law. With reference to the trade which was to be taken care of, he did not wish to be hostile to it; but they must not forget that it was an exceptional trade, existing under licence for the convenience of the public, enforced by restrictions, and placed under police supervision. If Parliament should think public-houses ought to be closed at particular times, no great injustice would be done to such a trade. Having had great electioneering experience as President of the Liverpool Liberal Association, he had, as a matter of electioneering policy, refused to engage public-houses as part of the machinery of an election. He was satisfied, from his own experience, and close study of the Reports of the Election Commissions, that treating was of very little use indeed unless public-houses were open on the day of election, because the whole system culminated upon that day. Upon one occasion, a ward in Liverpool was contested by a brewer and a teetotaller, and the latter sent watchmen wearing his colours into the public-houses to take down the names of those who were brought in to be treated by the other side. As the result of this expedient, he won the ward from the party which had held it nine years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would inquire in various parts of the country, he would find that all who were experienced in electioneering thought it would be a good thing to close public-houses on the polling-day. He trusted that the Bill would be postponed, because no harm would result from delay; but, on the contrary, when the Government Bill came under consideration, a great deal of evidence in favour of this proposal would be forthcoming.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he did not think that such a Bill was necessary at all, at least, not in Ireland, where heavy blows had been struck at the trade of late, in particular, by depriving publicans of Sunday profits. He would not say whether that had been done rightly or wrongly; but, at all events, he felt inclined to object to the Bill being applied to Ireland. He did not see, as long as elections were legitimately conducted in Ireland, why the licensed victuallers should be deprived of the profit they would ordinarily receive on the day of election too. He believed it was a fact that it had not been proved that there was any drinking in any county election in Ireland except one; and, even in that, it was not proved that the electors had been treated, and it seemed that what they drank, they drank at their own expense. Therefore, he did not see why Irish electors, having come from long distances, should be precluded from having their glass of spirits or their glass of beer, because people in other countries had abused that privilege. He believed the elections in Ireland would be found to be very pure in a general sense, and he thought it would be injudicious to have a special remedy as far as counties were concerned. He should feel inclined to vote against the Bill, unless a more specific case was made out for it, in the way of extending it to Ireland.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he did not know what course would be taken, and did not think anything he could say would have influence with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He had been looked at and referred to as a man of extreme views, and rightly so, for his views were extremely right; and if he had his way, the Bill would go much further, and would extend not only to election time, but to all the time between one election and another. Hon. Members had great difficulty in bringing in any measure in that House. There were two ways in which a reforming Member was treated. When a Member brought in a measure of reform, he was sure to be told there was no use in bit-by-bit legislation; and if he brought in a large Bill, he was asked—"What business have you, an audacious private Member, to deal with a question like this, as to which some comprehensive measure ought to be brought in by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department?" He did not think his hon. Friend who introduced the Bill (Mr. Carbutt) had suffered much in the debate that had taken place. Notwithstanding the efforts to persuade his hon. Friend to adjourn the debate, he did not see that that should be done, because the arguments which had been used had gone pretty much in the line that the Bill ought to be withdrawn, on the ground that it was not stringent enough. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was very much inclined to think that his hon. Friend should go on with the Bill, and the ingenious appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General did not alter his opinion much; but when the late Secretary of State for the Home Department backed up the Attorney General, he felt no doubt at all, for was it not an axiom with all right-minded politicians that when the two Front Benches agreed there was something wrong? When the hon. and learned Attorney General said—"Don't do anything until you get public opinion on your side," it might have been thought that he was speaking of the Permissive Bill, which could come into operation only with the assent of public opinion. This was a national matter; how were they to get at public opinion? Fancy the hon. and learned Attorney General insinuating that the House of Commons did not represent the public opinion of the country; it was a most extraordinary thing. Why, the Ministers were the products of public opinion, and the House of Commons was the result of public opinion. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would say to the hon. and learned Attorney General that public opinion was to be got at, not by going into the Conference Room and talking to the most reasonable licensed victualler he ever met with, but by coming to that House on a quiet Wednesday afternoon, when they were all sober. What more did they want? Let them not withdraw the Bill, but let a division be taken, so that the opinion of the House might be known on the subject. There could not be a better time to settle the matter. It was either right or wrong that public-houses should be closed on the polling day. They were not going into Committee at once; all that they decided by the second reading was whether the principle was right or not. The hon. and learned Attorney General said he had a good Bill on the stocks; so he had, almost too good a Bill to be carried; and when they came to discuss it he would be fortified if the House had assented to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, that the real evil they had to deal with was having an exaggerated view of possible purity at elections. As a matter of fact, they had now a standard of impossible purity, and they would not get what they required if they set up too high a standard. If they allowed a moderate amount of beer to be drunk, public opinion would go further in repressing worse forms of electoral corruption. Public opinion was in favour of some beer; and it was of more importance that the beer should be pure than that the elections should be pure. The public had a right to their beer, and it was wrong to deprive them of it. Put up with a moderate amount of beer; call it corruption, call it cheating, but let beer be given, by both sides if they liked, provided worse practices were not resorted to, and then they could punish with greater severity the giving of money; but there was greater difficulty in dealing with electoral corruption if they puritanically deprived people of what they had a right to expect, and what public opinion did not think it was a very horrible thing they should have.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)

desired, on his own part, to say that he did not think the Bill was required in Ireland.

MR. CARBUTT,

in reply, said, he believed that if he went to a division he would have a good majority, and if he had consulted his own feelings he should have gone to a vote. He believed public opinion was on his side, and he trusted the provisions of the Bill might be incorporated into the hon. and learned Attorney General's Bill. After the debate that had taken place, and which had amply justified him in introducing the measure, he felt he had not made it stringent enough; but he did not desire to interfere unduly with. business or social arrangements. Trusting, however, that hon. Members would support him when they got into Committee on the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would agree to the adjournment of the debate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Monday 25th April.