Commons Sitting of 4 May 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Thames River (No. 2)*[148].
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Berwick-upon-Tweed, &c.)*[138]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Wales) [3].
Select Committee—Coroners (Ireland)*[73], Mr. Blennerhassett added.
Withdrawn—Banking Laws Amendment [46].

JOHN DILLON, ESQUIRE.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had this day received the following Letter from the Right Honourable the Earl Cowper, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:—
Vice Regal Lodge,
May 3rd, 1881.
Sir,
It is my duty to inform you that Mr. John Dillon, a Member of the House of Commons, was arrested yesterday evening at Portarlington on a Warrant issued by me under the Act for the better protection of Person and Property in Ireland, and is new in the Gaol of Kilmainham in Dublin.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant, COWPER.
The Rt. Honble.
The Speaker House of Commons.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would not anticipate the discussion which would, no doubt, take place on the subject of the very important announcement just made to the House, on the Motion of which his hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had given Notice, and which amounted to a Vote of Censure on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to this latest use or abuse of the Coercion Act by himself and his Colleagues. He hoped he was right in anticipating that the right hon. Gentleman would not be anxious to allow that Vote of Censure to hang over him longer than was necessary. He wished meanwhile to give the right hon. Gentleman fair warning that on behalf of the hon. Member for Longford and his hon. Friends around him they intended to press, and that by all such means as the Forms of the House would permit, for an immediate and full discussion of that very important matter. He did not wish to anticipate the discussion; but he would point out to the Chief Secretary the points which they should urge, and upon which they should expect a satisfactory reply. In the first place, he must refer to the fact that so far as he could see his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant did not put himself much about in order to accelerate the announcement to that House of the fact of the arrest of one of its most prominent Members, and he must also say that he perceived a con-

1745
trast between the terms of the letter just read and the terms of the letter with regard to a similar event which was laid before the House by one of the Speaker's Predecessors on the arrest of Mr. Smith O'Brien in August, 1848. The letter addressed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Speaker of the House of Commons was in the following terms:—
"Sir,—It is my painful duty to inform you that Mr. Smith O'Brien was yesterday arrested on a charge of treason, and is now in the gaol at Kilmainham."
There was no expression of pain on the part of the Lord Lieutenant in respect to the arbitrary and extreme use he had made of the powers conferred on him by the Coercion Act, probably because he thought that Liberal principles had not sufficiently advanced since the dark days of 1848 to enable him to follow the example of his Predecessor. The points on which the right hon. Gentleman would be asked for explanations were—How he could justify to the House the arrest, pending the discussion of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, of an hon. Member of the House who notoriously represented almost more than any other Member of the House of Commons the opinions of a very important section of Irish farmers with respect to the legislative proposals of the Government? Why the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to select the present moment for the arrest, when it was known that his hon. Friend was on his way to London to take part in the discussion of the Land Bill. And how the right hon. Gentleman could justify the arrest of his hon. Friend because he had made a statement with respect to the state of Ireland which had been in the fullest manner corroborated by the right hon. Gentleman himself? The right hon. Gentleman would be invited to state whether it was or was not the case, as asserted by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, that ejectment processes were hanging over the heads of between 5,000 and 10,000 persons at the present moment, and if that statement was not in exact accordance with his own statement, made yesterday, that 2,273 processes of ejectment had been decreed at the recent Quarter Sessions, which meant the impending doom of between 10,000 and 12,000 Irish farmers. The right hon. Gentleman would be asked, therefore, whether the statement of the hon. Member for Tipperary in regard to the
1746
tenant farmers of Ireland, and the action of the landlords thereto, was not, if anything, an understatement of that of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the present condition of Ireland? They should ask the right hon. Gentleman to convince the House, if he was able to do it, that the hon. Member was not justified in bringing to the notice of the House, or bringing to the notice of the Government and the public, the calamities which were necessarily threatened by this monstrous and wholesale exercise of power in the present miserable condition of the people. He thought that those considerations would show to the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of meeting them in a prompt and frank spirit, and of giving them facilities for a fair and full and early discussion of the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was bound to exercise self-restraint and self-repression in regard to that arrest, and accordingly abstained from expressing his own feeling on the question; but he should have the opportunity of doing so, and of showing that this latest act of the right hon. Gentleman was one of the worst blunders he had ever made.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not intend to speak with regard to this question; but seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not make any reply to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of withdrawing from a position for which he was notoriously unfit. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Friends would be under the necessity of speaking very plainly, and of saying some truths which would not be at all palatable to the right hon. Gentleman, and which might rather clash, more or less, with the prejudices of some hon. Members of that House.
MR. HEALYgave Notice, on the nomination of the Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill, that he would move that the name of Mr. John Dillon be added to the Committee.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—DESTRUCTION OF H.M.S. "DOTEREL."
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can give to

  1747
  the House any further particulars respecting the unhappy accident which had happened to the "Doterel?" Many of his constituents were interested in ascertaining, as soon as possible, the names of the unhappy victims of this calamity; and he wished, therefore, to know whether any list of the crew would be published in the daily papers?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, a telegram was received this morning, about 8 o'clock, to this effect:—
  "Telegram from Commander Evans, late Her Majesty's ship 'Doterel.'
  "Montevideo, May 3, 12 55 p.m.
  "'Doterel' totally destroyed and sunk by explosion of fore magazine at Sandy Point, 10 a.m., April 26. Cause unknown, supposed boiler burst and exploded magazine. Twelve survivors, all well, proceeding in Britannia for Liverpool. Stokes (lieutenant) remains Sandy Point, awaiting orders. Have telegraphed (to) Pacific, and Jones (senior officer South-East Coast of America). Survivors.—Commander Evans, Lieutenant Stokes, Paymaster Colborne, Engineer Walker (of Garnet), Carpenter Baird, Gunner's Mate Pengelly, Quartermaster Trout, Caulker's Mate Ford, Shipwright Walkers, Ordinary Seaman James Smith, Stoker Turner, Marine Summers. Discharged.—Inlis (clerk), Miggeridge (sick bay man), Hayes (private), Motton (A.B.). John Ellery (A.B.) deserted. Dead.—Eight officers, 135 men."
  I shall go back to the Admiralty at once and make arrangements for sending the list of the crew to the papers, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member. The Admiralty has telegraphed to Montevideo, ordering Captain Loftus Jones, the senior officer on the South-East Coast of America, to proceed to Sandy Point, in order to ascertain the cause of the disaster. It may be said that Sandy Point, where Lieutenant Stokes has remained to set on foot the investigation, is a Chilian settlement in the Straits of Magellan, beginning to be much frequented for coaling and provisioning of vessels. It would be improper to make in public any premature conjecture as to the cause of this deplorable and heart-rending catastrophe. It would be, perhaps, as well not even to take for certain the conjecture mentioned in the telegram I have just read.
  MR. CARBUTT: Can the hon. Gentleman give any information as to the boilers—whether they were new or old?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the boilers, made by Messrs. Humphreys, were new
  1748
  within a year. Indeed, the ship was finished within a year from the present time, and had given satisfaction in every respect. It was looked upon as an extremely well-found vessel. If the boilers exploded, the lighted coal would naturally have been blown aft. The magazine was forward. There was a wall of coal, and the tanks, containing the entire water supply of the vessel, between the magazine and the boilers; but, as I have said, it is as well to make no conjecture as to the cause of the disaster.
  Afterwards,
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to take the present opportunity of making a short explanation with regard to something which passed at this Morning's Sitting in the course of some conversation that arose as to the terrible accident to H.M.S. Doterel. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Carbutt) asked me who it was that made the engines and boilers of the unhappy vessel. I was unable to answer; but an hon. Gentleman near me informed me that they were made by Messrs. Humphreys. On returning to the Admiralty, I found that they were made by that admirable and trustworthy firm the Messrs. Maudslay; but I must ask the House to remember that in the present state of our knowledge as to the cause of this accident, it is not right to consider the question of the makers of the engines as having any bearing at all upon the matter. The survivors, including the captain, will arrive in England well within a month, and by that time we certainly ought to have our first report from the officer who is examining into the causes of the disaster on the spot. It would be the most patriotic thing, under these circumstances, that we should reserve our opinion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (WALES) BILL.— [BILL 3.]
  (Mr. Roberts, Mr. Richard, Mr. Samuel Holland, Mr. Hussey Vivian, Mr. Rathbone.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. ROBERTS: Sir, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I must remind the House that a similar measure passed a second reading last Session;

  1749
  but its further progress was blocked by the application of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule. I do not think it necessary to enter upon the general question of the propriety of Sunday closing, because this House has already declared in favour of that question upon the Resolution of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), and the preceding Parliament to this acted in a similar manner with respect to Ireland. Beyond that, an earnest and almost universal desire has been manifested for Sunday closing in Wales. I do not propose to enter into any details on the present occasion; but I will merely summarize the position in which the supporters of the present Bill stand. First of all, with regard to the Petitions. Petitions in favour of the Bill were presented last year signed by more than 250,000 people. The exact number was 267,000, or rather more than one-third of the entire adult population of Wales, being a larger proportion of the inhabitants of any considerable district than ever before petitioned this Assembly in favour of any measure. It has not been thought necessary by the friends of the movement to repeat these Petitions this year; but in response to Circulars issued from North and South Wales, addressed to the representative bodies of the Principality—the Town Councils, Local Boards, School Boards, Boards of Guardians, and religious associations—Petitions have come in very freely. About 250 have already been recorded upon the Books of the House; and I may say, with regard to the views of public bodies, that there were very few instances in which the persons addressed did not respond to the appeal made to them. Even those public bodies which did not send a favourable Petition, explained that it was not from any feeling of hostility to the measure itself, but because it was considered undesirable to introduce at the Board meetings matters that were foreign to its functions. In 1879–80 there was a complete canvass of the whole of North Wales, and though no Returns were obtained from 44 parishes, about four-fifths of the whole number of ratepayers of North Wales voted. Out of 78,435 votes, 75,510 were in favour of Sunday closing, 989 were against it, and 1,936 remained neutral; or, in other words, 76 to 1 were in favour of closing. These Returns have been tabulated,
  1750
  printed, and circulated, giving the respective numbers in the several Unions, towns, and villages, and I do not know that their accuracy has been challenged. I notice amongst the towns that there were in Llanrwst 661 against 1 in favour of Sunday closing; and in Wrexham, a town which is supposed to be very much in the interests of the brewers, the number was 1,161 against 119. In Llanrwst the dissentient was a publican; but I may add that there are 14 publicans in Llanrwst, and of these 12 were in favour of Sunday closing, 1 was neutral, and only 1 against. The opinion of the entire body of publicans in Wales is strongly in favour of the Bill. It appears that out of 1,173 who voted, 792 were in favour, and only 152 against, while 229 declared themselves neutral; so that five-sixths of the publicans of Wales are themselves in favour of this measure. In some districts, the feeling among the publicans was very general. In the Union of Pwllheli, 96 were in favour of Sunday closing and only 1 against. I have presented a Petition signed by 23 publicans of the town of Carnarvon in favour of the Bill; and the resolution of the Local Board of Holyhead in its favour was moved by Mr. Riva, and seconded by Mr. Roberts, both of whom are licensed victuallers. In all these instances there was no attempt to manufacture Petitions. The motive for manufacturing Petitions was absolutely wanting, because all the work of canvassing was carried on by the expenditure of very little money—there being no elaborate organization—and without the employment even of one paid official. And what is the opinion of the Members for Wales on the subject? To that test I can appeal with the greatest confidence. The Welsh Members are 30; and of the 28 who sit on this side of the House, all, without a single exception, are in favour of this Bill. Of the Conservatives, we have the support of at least one-half of them. I could wish that for this purpose, and this only, that half had been a greater number; but I am glad to know that the Bill is supported by the hon. Baronet who represents the Conservatives of North Wales (Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn). I should have been glad also if it received the support of the noble Viscount who represents the Conservatives of South Wales (Viscount

  1751
  Emlyn), to whom we are much indebted in regard to the question of education. I do not know the ground of the noble Viscount's objection to this Bill. I see, however, that he has not repeated his Notice of opposition on the present occasion; and I hope either that he has changed his mind, or, if not, that he may feel it consistent with his duty to support the feelings and wishes of his constituents. And now I come to another point. The late Government afforded facilities to the Irish Members for the passing of the Irish Bill into law. In that case, the proportion of hon. Members who supported the Bill was something like 3 to 1; but in this instance it is 29 to 1. Then, let me appeal to the House, and especially to the Government, to help the Welsh Members in passing this Bill into law during the present Session. In the debate of last year my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. A. Peel), who spoke on behalf of the Government, said he could not resist the strong feeling shown by the Welsh Members on the subject. And the noble Marquess who then led the House (the Marquess of Hartington), in the absence of the Prime Minister, and who has been himself a Welsh Member, stated that although he could not give us facilities then, it was nevertheless the hope and desire of the Government to give to the Welsh Members this Session the same facilities for carrying their Bill that the late Government afforded to the Irish Members. I can assure the Government that we shall lose no opportunity in pressing forward the measure ourselves; but if we are unable to do so, we shall with confidence ask the Government to redeem their pledge. Legislation for England upon the subject must take place sooner or later; and whenever it does take place, it must be of advantage to the Government to have the experience of the working of this measure in Wales. In the case of Ireland, certain large towns were exempted from the operation of the Bill. In Wales there are populous places also, such as Cardiff, Swansea, Merthyr Tydvil, and Aberdare; but, instead of wanting to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, they demand to be included within it. I have received a communication from the Mayor of Swansea, stating that at a meeting recently held in that town,
  1752
  resolutions in favour of the Bill were unanimously adopted. The same course has been pursued in Cardiff and in other large towns. I would venture to suggest that upon such a question as this we, the Welsh Members, have some claim to be heard, and to have our wishes attended to. We are not in the habit of taking up much of the time of the House. We do not bore the House with long and frequent speeches on any question. We do not want much from Parliament. We only ask the House to give us a little help towards higher education in Wales, and to pass this little Bill. I use the word "little," because it is of small importance compared with many of the subjects that have occupied the attention of the House; but I can assure the House that it is very near and dear to the people of Wales, and that they consider it of the utmost importance to their country. The passing of the Bill, I may repeat, will give great satisfaction to the people of Wales; it will secure a much-needed day's rest to the publicans and those whom they employ, and will tend to check drunkenness and promote peace and order on the Sabbath Day. I beg now to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Roberts.)
  MR. WARTON,who had on the Notice Paper an Amendment to the effect that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, but which he did not move, said, they had heard few arguments that day in favour of the Bill which were not brought forward last Session. There might be pointed out one exception—namely, that the Prime Minister had been a Welsh Member. [Cries of "No, no!" and a "Welshman!"] He certainly understood the hon. Member (Mr. Roberts) to allude to Mr. Gladstone as a Welsh Member. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, the Prime Minister had been an English Member, a Scotch Member, a Borough Member, a University Member, and a County Member; but he had to quit every county constituency he ever represented. [Loud cries of "Question!"] The question was this, Why were they to have this Departmental legislation? Why should they have one Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland, and another

  1753
  Sunday Closing Bill for Wales, whose population, after all, only formed a small section of the community, but who, following the example of the Irish, fancied themselves a nation, and quite as famous as Ireland, while in point of fact, the Principality was only a small part of England? Wales, certainly, had not produced great men like Ireland, if, indeed, he excepted the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the Judge Advocate General. Why, then, were the Welsh people to have separate legislation? Who were the Welsh Members? The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had quoted statistics to show that the people of Wales wanted the Bill to be passed. That hon. Gentleman proved too much. If the overwhelming feeling of the people of Wales and the publicans of Wales were favourable to Sunday closing—if the Welsh people would not drink, and the Welsh publicans would not sell—how was it that the public-houses stood prosperous as they were at present? How came it to pass that these drinking-places existed in the Principality? If these Welsh publicans were so much in favour of Sunday closing, why did they not take out six-day licences? But there was another consideration to be remembered. They all knew that Wales possessed most beautiful scenery, which attracted large numbers of tourists, for whose sakes he (Mr. Warton) asked that the public-houses should be open on Sundays. By closing them, they would be cheating the tourist; whilst if they remained open for the tourist, the Welsh people need not drink. The whole thing was supremely ridiculous, and the attempt to legislate separately for a section of the country was a dangerous principle. He loved Wales too well to allow it to be separated from England; but the Welsh people, unfortunately, did not seem to be conscious of the dignity of their union with this country.
  MR. RATHBONE: The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who has just addressed the House, has converted the entire opposition to the Bill into a joke; and, if I may be allowed to say so, a mistake. The hon. and learned Member began by asserting that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a Welsh Member—[Laughter.]—
  MR. WARTON: I beg pardon; I said I understood the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Roberts) to say so.
  MR. RATHBONE: The hon. and learned Member has also alluded to my connection with Liverpool; but he does not seem to be aware that Liverpool contains a very large and important Welsh population. The hon. and learned Member, having made a number of jokes, and perpetrated a series of mistakes, ended by telling the House that he opposes the Bill because he "loves the people of Wales too well;" but he certainly should have said, "Not wisely, if too well." But, although the hon. and learned Member for Bridport may be inclined to treat the question as a joke, I can assure him that it is not regarded in the same light by the Welsh people. It will only be necessary for me to detain the House for a very few minutes, particularly after the able speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts), who moved the second reading, which has left the question perfectly unanswerable. In such a case as the present, when we find the country so entirely unanimous in support of the measure as Wales has been ascertained to be; when we have the experience of two other large parts of Her Majesty's Dominions—Scotland and Ireland—that legislation in favour of Sunday closing has been eminently successful; and when we see that every argument which led the House to adopt the measures for Scotland and Ireland applies with still greater force and is still more unanswerable in the case of Wales, and that there are fewer difficulties and dangers to encounter, surely we have made out an unassailable case for granting to Wales the boon we now ask for. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport speaks of "departmental legislation." That matter has been answered conclusively by what has been done in the case of Scotland and Ireland; and I defy the hon. and learned Member to find a single Scotch Member, after the long experience they have had of the working of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, who would vote for reversing that legislation. As my hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts) told the House last year, 99½ per cent of the householders of the county I represent (Carnarvon) petitioned in favour of this measure; and in Carnarvon 23 licensed victuallers supported it, whilst only three were against it. The

  1755
  hon. and learned Member for Bridport asks why, if all the people are in favour of Sunday closing, they cannot carry it out without a Bill? The hon. and learned Member is a lawyer—[Mr. WARTON: No, no!]—I certainly understood that he was. I can only add that I do not look upon him as a man of business; because if he were, he would know that these 23 licensed victuallers who support the Bill are compelled to keep their houses open on a Sunday from the fear that they would otherwise drive their customers away to other places. If all the houses were compulsorily closed, there would be no difficulty of that kind. Last year, we had an overwhelming number of Petitions from different individuals in Wales, who came forward spontaneously from all parts of the Principality. But this year, Welshmen have shown their usual wisdom in asking their Representatives to speak for them from the Boards of Guardians, Town Councils, Local Boards, School Boards, and Petitions have accordingly been presented from persons representing every form of local government, and confirming the views of the general body of the people. It is evident, then, that those to whom the people of Wales look as their leaders and best advisers quite agree with the bulk of the inhabitants that the measure should be passed. Well then, Sir, what we ask is, why should the boon which has been granted to Scotland and Ireland, and which has been successful in both of those countries, be denied to Wales? Hon. Members have mentioned the long experience which Scotland has had in favour of Sunday closing. In Ireland the experience of Sunday closing has been of shorter duration; but it is even more strongly conclusive in the matter. We have the evidence of the Lord Chief Justice that in Ireland the Act has had a most beneficial effect, and he has repeatedly pointed out that drunkenness has been considerably diminished throughout the country. This testimony has been confirmed by that of the Lord Chief Baron, Mr. Justice Dowse, the Crown Solicitor, the County Court Judges, by the clergy, Catholic as well as Protestant, and, in one sense more conclusively than all, by the head constables of the police throughout the country. The statistical Returns are most curious, because they not only show a great diminution in the consumption of spirits,
  1756
  and an enormous reduction in the number of offences committed under the influence of intoxication, but that this state of things is more marked in the districts which have suffered least from the recent distress, and where it cannot be said that the people have not had money to spend on drink. The only argument that has ever been used which has been conclusive with me is this—I required to be satisfied, before I ever voted for a Bill for Sunday closing, that the opinion of the country was so conclusive upon the matter that there was no danger of a law being made only to be broken. But we have now the evidence both of Scotland and of Ireland. There has been no difficulty whatever in enforcing the law; and it has been much less broken under the new law than it was under the old. I have said that in Wales there have been fewer difficulties on this subject and more advantages. The House knows very well there is no part of Her Majesty's Dominions—I believe there is no part of the world—in which religion has such an abiding and powerful influence over the habits and life of the people as in Wales. That being so, it is clear that you will have the whole force of the feeling, as well as of the opinion, of the Welsh people in support of the law. Independently of the religious sanction which the feeling of the Welsh people gives to the law, there is no part of the Kingdom where the law is more unhesitatingly obeyed than in Wales, or, at any rate, where there is less evidence against it. If any hon. Member doubts that assertion, he has only to read the seventh of the admirable letters of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard) on the social and political condition of the Principality. He will there find it plainly stated. What I now ask the House is this. The case is so clear and so unanswerable, that I feel I should be trespassing unfairly on the time of the House if I were to attempt to argue it further. All I ask is that you should give to Wales what you have already given to Scotland and Ireland. It has been shown that in both of those countries the law has been entirely successful and satisfactory to the people. We know, still further, that every argument that was urged when the Scotch and Irish Bills were before the House may be urged even more strongly in the case of Wales, and that it is impossible

  1757
  to have a more conclusive case than that which has been made out on behalf of Wales.
  MR. CARBUTT,in supporting the second reading, expressed a wish that it might at no remote date be extended to England. In Monmouthshire, part of which he represented, and which was divided only by a scientific frontier from Wales, of which it ought, in reality, to form part, the feeling in favour of Sunday closing was very strong—so strong, in fact, that he might say in some respects his election mainly turned upon it. He had been requested to try to get their county included in the operations of the Bill; and, if it were possible, he would certainly try to effect that object for the county which was so largely Welsh.
  MR. DALYsaid, it was undeniable that the great preponderance of opinion in Wales was in favour of the Bill, and that a great number of public bodies were in favour of it; but, if the principle be admitted for Wales, it was clearly right that it should be admitted for Ireland. As large a preponderance of Irish bodies and institutions, in the shape of Poor Law Boards and others, and as large a proportion of the population, were in favour of Home Rule for Ireland; but yet the Welsh Members invariably, when the topic came up for discussion, continually voted against it. He (Mr. Daly) adduced that argument simply to show that if the Welsh Members disregarded the opinions and feelings of the people of Ireland, when the Welsh Members brought forward an exactly similar argument, it was right that they should be so disregarded by the Irish Members. He considered that the principle of such a Bill was dangerous; and it was a fatal and dangerous principle to allow the wishes of the majority to exercise a tyrannical influence over the minority. There was a great difference between getting drunk, and the reasonable and rational use of drink. And if there were publicans who desired to close on Sunday, why did they not take out six-day licences; while, even if the public-houses were opened, if the people did not wish to use them, they could keep away? Neither the publicans, nor the customers, however great the preponderance of their opinion, had a right to override the feelings and wishes of the minority. During the last eight or
  1758
  ten days they had had serious and angry debates in the House about the abnegation of the Oath. Now, if the Welsh Members logically followed out their opinions, they could not vote for the abnegation here. He believed the majority of the people of the country were against it. He had no doubt that the Bill would pass; but he could not let it pass without recording his protest against such a dangerous precedent.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsupported the Bill, and reminded the previous speaker that Parliament had already yielded to the wish of Ireland to carry out the very alterations in the law which was now asked for by the Welsh people, and supported by every Welsh Member. That the feeling in favour of the closing of public-houses was universal in Wales was beyond all doubt. It was universal not only amongst the people of Welsh origin, but universal amongst people of English and Irish origin who were now inhabitants of Wales. The feeling was as strong at Cardiff as it was at Holyhead; it was as strong in the county of Monmouth as it was on the Welsh side of the border. Even the great majority of the publicans in Wales were favourable to the Bill, and the only opposition to the measure came from the English publicans, under the leadership of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). That hon. and learned Member said they could not have separate legislation for Wales distinct from England on this question. But had he forgotten that they had separate legislation already, not only for London and the Provinces, but between large towns and small towns, and towns and rural districts? The principle was, therefore, admitted all over the Kingdom, and to apply it to Wales, so far as Sunday was concerned, was simply an application of the principle upon which present Acts were founded. It was further objected by the hon. and learned Member that if the Welsh publicans were in favour of the Bill they could take out six-day licences—and keep their houses closed without fresh legislation. But did not the hon. and learned Member know that one dissentient could make that impossible? The only other objection raised was that it was not to the advantage of tourists who went into Wales to enjoy the scenery to find the public-houses closed on Sundays.

  1759
  His answer to that was, in the first place, that when tourists went to Wales, they went there, not only to enjoy the scenery, but also in order to recruit their health; and he thought it would be a good thing for them if they were forced to abstain, at all events on one day out of seven, from all intoxicating drinks in the healthy and pure atmosphere of the mountains of Wales. Another answer was this, that tourists in Wales might enjoy themselves very much in the same way as those who went to the grouse moors in Scotland. If they could not abstain for one day, they might take a flask in their pocket, and they could further enjoy it with the fresh water from the brook. But there was still another answer. In the framing of the present Bill bonâ fide travellers were excluded, not in so many words, but in substance, because the principles of the Act now in operation were to apply to the Bill, and one of those principles was that during the time public-houses were now obliged to be closed on Sundays bonâ fide travellers were allowed refreshments. It would be the same if this Bill passed as it was framed at present, because that limitation would be introduced out of the Acts that were already in force. All the objections, therefore, that were made to this Bill came to nothing at all. One objection which had been made was that the Welsh Members had refused to support Home Rule. When it came to the question of Home Rule, then came the further question whether they should go with Ireland or with England. They would consider that question when it came. At present they were not in favour of Home Rule; but if it was shown that they would be so much better off for Home Rule in Wales, they were open to conviction. At present they remained unconvinced. In Wales they were content with their union with England, and at present were unwilling to let Ireland go. He thought they were entitled, as Welshmen, to have this Bill passed, because the Welsh Members were unanimous in their support of it, there not being a single Welsh Member present to object to it.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that having taken a great interest in the drink question for many years past, and having opposed Bills similar to that now before the House on former occasions, he desired to say a few words in reference to this
  1760
  measure. He thought that the Welsh were entitled to great credit for their general temperance. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) that the arguments for the Bill were the same as those for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. In that case, a strong argument in favour of closing was that there was an immense amount of drinking and drunkenness on the Sunday; but, in the case of Wales, it was agreed that there was little or no drunkenness whatever on the Sunday. It amounted, therefore, to this—that the Bill must be regarded as a Sabbatarian and religious one; and, looking on the question from that point of view, he failed to see what argument there was, however religious a man might be, for precluding him from having a glass of beer on the Sunday. If the Bill were read a second time, Amendments would have to be introduced excepting the bonâ fide traveller and railway-station refreshment-rooms from its operation. It had been said that the Irish and Scotch Bills had done a great deal to diminish drinking; but his (Mr. Onslow's) experience was, that if the Scotch people were not allowed to drink on Sundays, they made up for it on other days; and he was quite sure that it was a greater inducement to people to drink more on other days when they were refused anything to drink on a particular day. He failed to see any necessity for a Bill of that kind, and he believed it to be a Bill merely on the lines of sentimental legislation; and if he could get anyone to join him he should certainly divide the House against the Bill.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am anxious to say a few words on this Bill before the discussion closes, not as representing the Government, but simply because my name was originally on the back of the measure, and because the constituency I represent feels a deep and keen interest in the matter. Now, the rejection of the measure has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport—[Mr. WARTON: No, no!]—at any rate, the hon. and learned Member opposed the measure in a speech in which it seemed to me that the chaff very largely preponderated over the wheat. But the hon. and learned Member is not a Welsh Representative, neither is the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow); nor do I know that either of them is

  1761
  specially charged with the duty of looking after the interests of the Welsh people. I see that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, however, is perfectly impartial in his opposition to the principle of this measure, because, on looking down the Paper, I find that he has visited with the same condemnation the English Sunday Closing Bill of the hon. Member for South Durham (Mr. J. W. Pease). I therefore attribute his opposition to the Bill, not to any particular prejudice against the subject of this particular measure, but to the possession of that bump of destructiveness which induces him to oppose any measure promoted from this side of the House which has escaped the attention of more pacifically disposed Members. What is the main argument of the hon. and learned Member? It is that Wales is so completely merged in England, that it has no right to any political identity of its own; he says—"You have no right to legislate departmentally on any Imperial subject." But, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) pointed out, the hon. and learned Member forgets that we do legislate departmentally on this very subject; because, on this question of the hours of closing public-houses, we have made one law for London, another for large towns in the Provinces, and another for rural districts. The argument of the hon. and learned Member, therefore, breaks down at the very threshold; but I am quite prepared to meet him on a broader ground. I think it is time that people should understand that in dealing with Wales you are really dealing with an entirely distinct nationality; a nationality more distinct than that of the Scotch or Irish, because Wales is separated from England not merely by race and by geographical boundaries, but by a barrier which interposes at every turn of life, and than which there is no more dividing barrier which can separate one people from another—I mean the barrier of language. Knowing, as I do, how distinct Welsh opinion is on this subject from English opinion, I say you cannot legislate for the one in all respects as you do for the other, and to assume that you can seems like a piece of Constitutional pedantry. Public opinion on this subject in Wales is far more advanced than it is in England—at least, I should call it so. The whole social and moral
  1762
  and religious atmosphere of the country is quite different from that of England, and I am only repeating the language of every Judge who has ever been on the Welsh Circuit when I say that crime is almost unknown; if hon. Members opposite will forgive me for the expression, I will say it is almost as unknown there as Conservatism. An hon. Member said the other day that the Welsh were a set of ignorant barbarians compared with the English; and in reply to that, all I can say is that I wish Her Majesty had a few more of such "ignorant, barbarian" subjects, for I would sooner have a sober barbarian than a civilized sot. The people of Wales are practically unanimous on this question. The argument against the adoption of Sunday closing in England, of which I have always felt the force, is that it does not do to legislate on these matters touching the licensing question ahead of public opinion. As the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Rathbone) has observed, it is no use passing a law which is sure to be broken. I have always felt great force in that argument. It was admitted, when the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was brought forward, that the strongest argument in favour of it was that a preponderating majority of the people of Ireland wanted it. Well, what was the majority of the people of Ireland that desired it? I think it was something like three or four to one. But in the case of this Welsh Bill, the people of the country in favour of it are in the proportion of 30 to 1, so that you have not only a preponderating majority, but an absolutely overwhelming one. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Warton) turns this fact against us, and says—"If you can show that the whole of Wales is in favour of Sunday closing, it follows that no one will want to go to the public-house on Sunday. And he asks, why should you pass legislation to prevent the Welsh people from doing that which they do not want?" I grant that that is a specious argument; but it will not hold water. The hon. and learned Member knows that the competition of the publicans is so keen that if 1 out of 10 keeps open on Sunday, all the others will be obliged do the same. As a matter of fact, the thing was tried in one of the principal towns in my constituency. All the publicans, with the

  1763
  exception of one or two, agreed to take out a six-day licence. On account of the action of the publicans who refused to close on the Sunday, the majority found themselves unable to carry out their own wishes. They really wished to be protected against themselves, and perhaps this accounts for the peculiar fact that in Wales a considerable support of this measure comes from the publicans themselves; they are the persons who are urging you, as far as you can, to pass this Bill. The appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I will not say on behalf of England, against this Bill, is entirely unsupported from Wales. It is well known what the result of the Irish Bill has been; Judges, magistrates, police constables, ministers of all denominations—Protestants, Catholics, and Presbyterians—all unite in saying that the passing of that Act has been of great benefit to Ireland. At any rate, I think if there were not a good deal of reason for the passing of this measure, you would not find such a universal consensus of public opinion in favour of it. People, as a general rule, are not so unanimous in favour of a Bill that is not wanted. Welshmen see the good that will ensue if the present Bill is passed; they say you have passed a similar Bill for Ireland and Scotland, why not mete out the same measure of justice to us? And I must say, before sitting down, that it seems to me this Sunday question is in a very abnormal and strange position. You do not allow by your laws any place of recreation or instruction, however harmless, to be opened for one single hour on Sunday, and yet you will allow, at the corner of every street, a gin-palace to open its door and invite people to enter; you will not allow the fountain of knowledge to play for one moment on Sunday; but you allow the fountains of beer to play from noon until night. A French humourist has said that in England the only two places of public resort open on the Sunday are the church and the gin-palace; and he added, somewhat cynically, that he thought the devil drove the better trade of the two. In conclusion, I ask the House not to be influenced in coming to a decision on this subject by hon. Gentlemen who can know nothing and do know nothing of the merits of the
  1764
  case. I ask you to give the people of Wales a boon which is demanded by nearly the whole of the inhabitants, and which is supported by almost every single Welsh Member in the House.
  MR. C. H. JAMESsaid, the feelings of the constituencies in North Wales had so far been spoken to by Representatives from that part of the Principality; but, as representing a large borough in South Wales, he wished to say the feeling in favour of the Bill was unanimous in Wales, and the proper observance of Sunday was a thing which ought to be fostered and not discouraged. The Welsh people filled the chapels, and, in many instances, the churches, on Sundays, whilst their gaols were half empty. Of that they had reason to be proud, and it was because they desired to extend the general observance of the day that they wished the Bill to become law. As to the refreshment-room question, the local railways were not used on Sundays, and the feeling was decidedly against Sunday travelling. That being so, the refreshment-rooms need not trouble any hon. Member. He should not say much more, for the subject seemed thrashed out. Nine-tenths of his constituents were, so to speak, hot that the Bill should pass; and he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not stand in the way of the Welsh people getting what they wanted. They wanted to take away the temptation from the working people on Sunday; and as to the bonâ fide traveller, he was carefully provided for by a special clause in the Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Bill, not because it was a Welsh Bill, but because it was class legislation of the worst kind. The hon. Member who moved the second reading (Mr. Roberts) spoke of the Petitions which had been presented in favour of it; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) wished to remind the House that little reliance could be placed on Petitions. In the case of the Irish Sunday Closing Act many Petitions were presented; but, on examining them, it was found they were signed by persons who never used the public-houses, and who would not suffer any inconvenience if public-houses were closed on every day in the week. He had the suspicion that this would be found to be the case in the present instance. If the hon. Gentlemen who were promoting the Bill would consent

  1765
  to the opening of the public-houses in Wales for two hours on the Sunday—say from 2 o'clock to 4—he would withdraw his opposition to the Bill. It was unfair that even for one day of the week the only refreshment houses for the working classes should be closed. It was stated that all the people were in favour of the measure; but they must not forget that this was a working man's question. It was not a publican's question or a Member's question; and it was well known that the working classes in Wales, having no votes, had no influence in that House. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, the interest of hon. Members was sentimental and not practical. This was a Bill which affected the working classes, and it was very wrong that public-houses should be closed altogether one day in the week. He doubted whether, when the franchise was extended to the working classes in the country, a Sunday Closing Bill would pass in a hurry for either England, Wales, Ireland, or Scotland. It was absurd to say the publicans were anxious for the Bill, because if they did not wish to open on Sunday they could get a six-day licence. He should vote againt the Bill.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that as one who took an active part in passing the Sunday Closing Bill in Ireland, and who, made every effort to enlist public opinion outside the House in favour of the movement, he hoped he might be permitted to say a few words in support of the measure, and to point out what he considered the very great advantages which had resulted from Sunday closing in Ireland. His hon. Friends the Members for Cork City (Mr. Daly) and Limerick County (Mr. O'Sullivan) had spoken against the measure. He believed that both those hon. Gentlemen were thoroughly candid, and, if appealed to in that House, he expected, notwithstanding their opposition to interference with the liquor traffic, would say that Sunday closing in Ireland had been productive of the most beneficial results. He was glad that the hon. Gentlemen did not dissent. [Mr. DALY dissented.] No; he was mistaken. He saw the hon. Member for Cork City dissented; he trusted before he had done to make a convert of the hon. Gentleman, for he would state some figures which he was sure his hon. Friend would candidly accept as accurate, and, if he
  1766
  did so, he could not deny the benefits of Sunday closing. His hon. Friend represented a city that was the most distinguished in Ireland for the manufacture and consumption of whisky; and it was only just to say that Cork whisky was the best in Ireland. Some time ago, he (Mr. Blake) visited the Island of Innisthraul, off the coast of Donegal, in an official capacity. On inquiring from a policeman as to how they occupied themselves in so sterile a spot, he informed him that the people there spent half their time in making whisky and the other half in drinking it. He did not know whether that could be said of Cork; but it was a fact that the most extensive manufacture in Cork was that of whisky; and, by the Return he had in his hand, it seemed to be increasing largely in consumption in that city also, and so the increase of drunkenness was, too, judging by the police Returns of arrests, which were tremendous. Those Returns showed that in 1878 in Cork City the number of arrests for drunkenness was 3,790, and in 1879, 4,508, showing an increase of 768. Drinking appeared to be increasing in the city of Cork from a date previous to 1878. It seemed difficult to account for that unless the Report of the Association for the Prevention of Intemperance truly stated—"From being the Mecca of temperance, Cork has passed to be one of the strongholds of the drink party. "That was, indeed, a sad change for a city which was the scene of the first and greatest efforts of the Apostle of Temperance (Father Mathew). No voice was raised in this House to sustain a cause in which Cork, in better days, took the foremost place. The reduction in the amount realized by the sale of drink since the Sunday Closing Bill was passed, comparing 1878 with 1879, was £1,576,634, the latter being the first entire year after the passing of the Act. The spirits for home consumption were less in the first three months of 1880, as compared with the first three months of 1879, by 500,000 gallons, and the consumption of beer was less by a much greater amount. The arrests for drunkenness in Ireland were nearly 9,000 less in 1879, as compared with 1878; the arrests for drunkenness on Sundays in 1878 numbered 107,723, and in 1879 they were only 99,021, which represented a reduction of as much as 8,702 as compared with

  1767
  the previous year. The late hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Redmond), who took a deep interest in the temperance cause in Ireland, and whose son, he (Mr. Blake) was glad to say, was following in his father's footsteps, moved for a Return showing the effect of the seven and the five hours' sale in the exempted cities in Ireland. In 1877 and 1878, in the five cities exempted from the Act, there were 2,820 arrests, and then the seven hours' sale on the Sunday was in operation; but in the same cities, when the five hours' sale was in operation, the arrests numbered 2,132, showing a reduction of 25 per cent. When the Sunday Closing Bill was introduced, the most evil effects were prognosticated. It was said there would be riots and disorder all over Ireland the moment the key was turned on the publican's lock. Everyone knew what attempts were made to frighten Parliament in this way. This prediction proved to be utterly groundless. Sunday closing had not been responsible for a single breach of the peace. On the contrary, Judge after Judge at the Assizes, and in the minor Courts in Ireland, referred to its beneficial effects, and attributed the decrease in assaults and other descriptions of offences to Sunday closing. Five cities in Ireland were exempted from the Act. One of these cities—Waterford—he (Mr. Blake) formerly represented, and it was one of the proudest circumstances of his life that he fought the public-house interest in that city and defeated it, taking his stand on Sunday closing and the Permissive Bill. For the bonâ fide travellers' clause he could speak from experience, because he happened to be the head landlord of two public-houses which, he was sorry to say, were doing what was called a roaring trade with bonâ fide travellers. The houses were situated six miles from Waterford, and, under the law, they were able to give drink to bonâ fide travellers. Bonâ fide travelling consisted in travelling from Waterford to the place where they could get drink if they pleased and returning. He was like some other landlords in Ireland, unable to get any rent, although they were doing a good business. He hoped, however, to get possession of the houses by law, and to convert them into coffee palaces. Drink was the greatest curse of Ireland, and it was a blessing to his country to close the public-houses for
  1768
  even one day in the week. He hoped they would eventually be closed for seven days in the week, and then the advantages arising from closing would be seven-fold. His hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had spoken of this as class legislation, and had characterized the closing of the only resort of the majority of the population as a coercive measure. It was, so far as a class required it. He (Mr. Blake) was lately in America, where there were as many as 16,000,000 of Irish blood. He was sorry to say that many of his countrymen in America were just as distinguished for drinking as many of the Irish were at home; and more than one Bishop in America told him that drinking was one of the leading causes against the progress of the Irish in America. Some of them had said that if the Irish could only be temperate they could rule America. In the several districts of America where local option was in operation, the Irish formed a very important portion of the inhabitants. He had had opportunities of speaking to hundreds of them; and after prohibition took place they became amongst the most thriving and respectable citizens in America. What occurred in the North-West Territory of British Canada? It was about the coldest place in the world, for it was 55 degrees below zero; at certain times actually 5 degrees below the Arctic Regions. Drunkenness was predominant there at one time—the settlers drank, the Hudson's Bay hunters and agents drank, and the half-castes and Red Indians drank. In order to protect themselves against themselves, they passed a Prohibitory Bill, and the consequence was that drink was entirely precluded from the whole of the North-West Territory. Some medical men argued that, in so cold a region in winter, some drink was necessary. Local option had been some years in operation, and physicians told him that on no account would they recommend a re-introduction of drink; and that, save in very rare instances, had they ordered even wine for their patients. The people of Manitoba had petitioned to be joined to the North-West Territory; but the latter would not consent, unless Manitoba also gave up drink, which it was about to do. So much for the necessity of drink in cold countries. What occurred when drink was used under damp circum-

  1769
  stances? Sir John Coode, when making the breakwater at Portland, had to employ some hundreds of men, and a great portion of the skilled artizans had to work under water. One-half of them were moderate drinkers. He induced some hundreds of them to become teetotallers; and his experience, which extended over several years, was that total abstainers, in point of endurance and health, far excelled even the moderate drinkers. He cordially congratulated the Members for Wales upon their unanimity in this matter, and especially on their having no exemption in the Bill as regarded particular towns. No matter what might be said to the contrary, if the figures which had been given to the House were true, he challenged his hon. Friends to say that the passing of the Bill for Ireland had not been productive of enormous advantages. When Ireland was temperate in other years it was the brightest period of her history; and with a return of drunkenness the greatest misfortunes had followed. It had been urged before, and probably would be urged again, that one of the reasons why drunkenness had so considerably decreased in Ireland within the last two years was on account of the distress—that the people were not placed in as favourable circumstances for getting drink as they were formerly. But the facts of the case did not bear out that view. Great distress existed in 1879; butin the most distressed districts the decrease of drunkenness was least. Where there was little distress the people were the most temperate. Where the greatest distress occurred in Ireland, there had not only been the greatest amount of drunkenness, but also the largest number of outrages, and his theory upon the matter was that the unfortunate people who perpetrated them before they did so often got drunk. In 1848, when the distress was greater in Ireland than had ever been the case either before or since, the same thing occurred; the consumption of drink increased where the distress was heaviest, and in the districts where drunkenness increased the largest number of outrages were committed. He was happy to see that there was every prospect of the passing of the present Bill. If it did not, it would certainly be a very great reproach to the House. He could not understand why they should hesitate
  1770
  to pass for Wales what had proved to be so highly beneficial for Scotland and Ireland. Seeing that there was such an amount of unanimity among the Welsh Members, and that they were supported by the strong feeling of their constituents, he trusted that the present measure would prove to be only the forerunner of total closing in Wales, and which he hoped, for the sake of the morality, happiness, and progress of the people, would soon be the case in the whole of the Three Kingdoms.
  DR. KINNEAR, in supporting the Bill, said, that the tabulated results showed that during the past two years there had been a marked reduction in the consumption of intoxicating liquor in Ireland amounting to close upon £2,000,000. During that time there had been a decrease in the drunken arrests amounting to close upon 20,000. There had also been a reduction in the number of Sunday arrests for drunkenness amounting to 70 per cent. The value of this result was enhanced by the fact that the past two years had been a period of exceptional excitement.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will not detain the House many minutes with what observations I have to bring forward. The debate on this Bill has now proceeded for some time. Only a few hon. Members have expressed their views adverse to the Bill, and I have one or two remarks to make upon the question. In the first place, I have to remark that not one of the speeches in opposition to the Bill has proceeded from hon. Members representing Wales; and, in the second place, those who dissent from it have not said much that could influence the House in the rejection of the Bill, nor have they made any Motion for its rejection. They have, apparently, not thought it worth while or prudent to focus or place on record whatever adverse feeling there may be to be obtained against it. Undoubtedly, those two circumstances are a matter of great encouragement to those who have brought on, and are now pressing forward, the Bill. I apprehend that there is no single Welsh Member who would wish, or if there be any single Welsh Member who would wish, there is, I suspect, no Welsh Member who would venture to give his opposition to the Bill in a practical shape. I am not a Welsh Member; but I am a resident within the borders of Wales, and

  1771
  the question, therefore, addresses itself to me as one of particular interest. Now, I am not at all disposed, in a matter of this kind, to give too great scope to my own personal leanings or preferences. When I am asked to say whether public-houses should be closed upon Sunday in one or another part of the country, my reply would be, in the first place, that I do not think the question ought to be decided according to any individual preferences. It appears to me that this is eminently a question on which the feeling of one of the great sections of the country may be well ascertained; and when tested by an experience of some length of time, when placed entirely beyond doubt by sufficient evidence, it ought to command the greatest attention, and, I would even say, a willing assent in this House. That was so, many years ago, in the case of Scotland; and no one, I think, ventured in the case of Scotland seriously to oppose what influence or inspirations could be drawn from any other portion of the country to the granting of the boon Scotland asked for. We then were engaged for a length of time in a controversy on the case of Ireland; and then the same considerations were urged by those who supported the measure for closing public-houses on Sunday in Ireland, that the sentiment of the country was perfectly ascertained and established, and that, being established, it ought to be assented to by Parliament. In the case of Ireland, however, there was this great difference from the present case—that there were a certain number of the Irish Representatives who had maintained stoutly and persistently in their places that the true feeling of the Irish people had not been expressed, and that it was, to a considerable extent, adverse to the Bill. On that ground, and, undoubtedly, in consequence of their exertions, assisted by influence borrowed to a great extent from England, a very obstinate or resolute—I do not wish to use a word with an invidious meaning—resistance was offered to the Bill; but still, upon the whole, Parliament assented to the Bill, and Parliament, I think, assented to it under the influence of a general genuine pressure of Irish opinion, and not in deference to any merely theoretical view, or sectional movement apart from the public opinion of Ireland. Well, we have just heard from my hon.
  1772
  Friend behind me (Dr. Kinnear), and we have heard on various occasions and
  in various forms, accounts which, I must say, have been eminently consolatory and satisfactory to its promoters, with regard to the working of that measure in Ireland. Encouraged by what has happened in that case, the people of Wales have brought forward their Bill. The case of Wales is somewhat peculiar. Undoubtedly, it has not in the past been the habit of Parliament to look to Welsh opinion or to Welsh interests as a distinct, independent factor in the Constitution of this country, as it has been in regard to England and Ireland. Wales has been regarded as in a closer relation to ourselves than either Scotland or Ireland. But I am bound to say that it appears to me that we have pushed these considerations too far. On many subjects, in my opinion, there has been a great deal of occasion for complaint; on one subject, in particular, the treatment of Wales was almost a barbarous treatment, and that subject was the mode in which the patronage of the Welsh Church Establishment was administered. In that matter, English ideas and English views were allowed completely to override the wishes and the interests of the whole people of Wales. The Services of the Church in Wales were administered, for the most part, in a foreign tongue; the Bishops who superintended the action of the Church, in most instances, could not speak in Welsh even the words of the Confirmation Service which they had to administer to the people of the country; and that was an example of the length to which English ideas were pushed and forced upon the people. I am not going to set up an extravagant theory of nationality with regard to either Wales, Ireland, or Scotland; but this I will say—that where there is a distinctly formed Welsh opinion, as in the present case, upon a given subject which affects Wales alone, and the acceptance of which does not entail any public danger or public inconvenience to the rest of the Empire, I know no reason why a respectful regard should not be paid to that opinion. Now, this is a question with regard to which it appears to me to be eminently right and fit that the desire of the Welsh should be kindly entertained by Parliament. For this, after all, is not a question of

  1773
  Constitutional, of political, or of Parliamentary control; it is not a question of Home Rule and the disintegration of the Empire which some hon. Gentlemen see as treading in the steps of Home Rule; it is a question of police; and being a question of police, it is also a question in which, on grounds of policy, Parliament itself has seen fit to distinguish between different portions of the country, not only at first between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and afterwards between England and Ireland, but also between different parts of England, according as the population is aggregated together in large towns, or as it is dispersed over rural districts. And, moreover, I must point out that the argument may be even carried a little further. There is an energetic Party in this House who are disposed to carry over, bodily, in the most unlimited manner, the whole discretion as to the having houses for the sale of spirituous and strong liquors at all into the hands of the local community. Even a very great number of those who do not go the whole length of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (sir Wilfrid Lawson), yet are of opinion that the local principle ought to be admitted to a very considerable extent; so that when, for example, my right hon. Friend, now President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), made a proposal, really on the part of the town of Birmingham, to grant to Municipal Corporations great powers with respect to the consumption of or traffic in spirituous liquors, there were very many, although not a majority, in this House thought that a principle of that kind might be justly introduced into our law. I mention all this simply in illustration of the general proposition that this is a question in which, within due limits, local opinion may safely be allowed to have a very considerable weight; and, if so, I may join with that the modest claim on the part of Wales. Wales is, after all, a country with a people of its own, with a language of its own, with traditions of its own, with feelings of its own, and with especially religious feelings and associations of its own. And undoubtedly it is the religion of Wales which must be admitted to be prevailing in nineteen-twentieths of the parishes of Wales; and it is the religious associations of the people of Wales which very consider-
  1774
  ably enter into the general frame of opinion which has called forth this Bill. I I do not think, therefore, that in a question of this kind it is too much to say that the House would do well to give kindly attention to the wish which is almost unanimously entertained by the people of Wales in this matter. Do not let it be thought by those who are alarmed at the idea of the introduction of this question into England that the question for England will ever be decided one way or the other, or sensibly influenced by the fact of what we may do in Wales. The question, when it comes to be decided for England under the Bill which is already on the Table of the House, will have to be decided in reference to the state of public opinion in England. The essential condition, in my opinion, for the passage of any such Bill is that public opinion should have attained a very decided state as to its wisdom or propriety. It would not be fair, for example, in a case of this kind, to override the wishes of a very sensible minority. If a change of this kind is introduced into the law, that ought only to be done upon the recognition of something which approaches to a unanimity of feeling in the community to which it is to be applied. It ought not to be done, at any rate, by the mere triumph of a majority over a minority. I give no opinion, therefore, upon the question with respect to England, except this—that I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Stevenson) will not succeed in inducing the House to adopt the Bill which he has introduced, unless he is able to prove such a state of public opinion as constitutes a demand. The state of public opinion in Wales undeniably, I think, has reached such a state of maturity as to leave no doubt at all about the matter. I cannot conceive any assertion of any kind that can be made safely with regard to Wales, if we may not make the assertion that it is the earnest desire of the people of Wales, in the interest of the country, in the interest of the population, in the interest of the fathers of families in Wales, that this Bill should be passed. The Welsh, as far as I have ever had the means of judging, are upon the whole, and especially as you come among the poor Welsh, a very sober people. You may say that if they are a very sober people they are the less in need of this Bill; yes, that may

  1775
  be true. But is that a reason why the Bill should not be passed? Is there no such thing as the temptation to drunkenness? If the condition of the people with regard to the use of spirituous liquors has been improved up to such a point that the people, almost without exception, are desirous to set aside this temptation, would it not be a cruel thing on the part of Parliament if we, on the invitation of hon. Members who do not represent Wales, and have no title to speak on its behalf, were to refuse to set that temptation aside? I hope that this Bill may proceed to its second reading without division. If there were a division, I feel confident it would be accepted by an overwhelming majority of the House; and I further hope that after it has passed the second reading, if it be found that there is no material change in its scope, there will be no disposition on the part of any hon. Members who may object to the Bill to seek opportunities of obstructing its progress through the Forms of the House in the present state of Public Business, and that they will honourably and kindly allow it to pass forward to take its place in the Statute Book.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN: I will not detain the House; but, after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, I feel I must say that now that this Bill has been introduced, Her Majesty's Government should give us assistance in passing it through this Session. The right hon. Gentleman has recommended the House to receive the measure with kind consideration. I trust that it will do so; but in the event of any obstruction being offered—and we know how difficult it is, under the present Rules of the House, for private Members to carry Bills through—I hope we shall in this case receive the support and assistance of the Government. Nothing could be stronger than that which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He has said that to deny this Bill to the people of Wales would be an act of great cruelty. That is precisely what I would venture to suggest to the House and to hon. Members who, on principle, oppose measures of this kind. The people of Wales are practically unanimous, therefore I hope no opposition may be offered to it on its future stages; and I think we shall have just and strong grounds for calling
  1776
  on Her Majesty's Government, in the event of such obstruction, to give such facilities as will enable us to pass the measure this Session.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: Sir, I have no intention of challenging a division on this question. [Cries of "Divide!"] I will not detain the House more than a minute or two, and I trust hon. Members will allow me to make an humble but emphatic protest against the conclusion the Prime Minister has come to. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a question of police; but it appears to me to be rather a question of principle. The duty of the police, I understand, is to protect the public from wrong-doers; but the object of this Bill is to enable a majority to trample on a minority. This is one of a class of measures of which we have seen too many of late—a class allowing the invasion of the rights of individuals at the bidding of a majority. The tyranny of the individual has been replaced by the tyranny of the majority. We have now cone to a condition of things in which we are told what a man shall drink and what he shall not drink, and on what day or days, and I do not know why we should not equally allow the majority to decide what he shall eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed. My idea of a State under a democracy is the individual liberty of every unit in that democracy, and not the idea that a mere numerical majority shall subject individuals to control in matters on which the State has no right to interfere with them. We have our Contagious Diseases Acts and other measures all interfering with the rights of individuals. If all Wales is in favour of this Bill, my objection is intensified, for there is no need of it. If there is only a small majority, there is no strong case for it, and the number who wish to tyrannize are few; but if there is a large majority the tyranny is the more crushing. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a local question; but I cannot agree with him. The question is a national one—a question of individual freedom—therefore, I offer my humble protest against this and all similar Bills.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) in his condemnation of the principle which underlay the present Bill and all similar measures; and he wished it to be clearly under-

  1777
  stood, with reference to the appeal just made by the Prime Minister, that if the Conservatives abstained from taking a division on the Bill, they were not to be understood as admitting the principle as applicable to England. He had abstained from interfering with the progress of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, because it had appeared to him that it was really wished for in Ireland, and because the circumstances there were entirely different from those of this country.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he would not have interposed in the debate if he had not thought it necessary to say a word or two in defence of county Cork. The inhabitants of that county had been represented by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) as spending one-half of their time in making whisky, and the other half in drinking it; but he (Mr. Shaw) believed they were as sober a people as any in the world. As Irishmen had not the habit of eating as well as Englishmen, a little drink affected them, and the moment an Irishman began to stagger a policeman took him up. Until recently they had nothing better to do; but just now, perhaps, they were better employed, and so there were fewer arrests for drunkenness. He would not oppose the present Bill, because they were told it was the wish of the people of Wales that it should be passed; but he asked whether it was really desired by the whole of the people of Wales, or only by the religious people of the Principality? He had great sympathy with the irreligious, and he feared that the irreligious might be sat upon by the religious, in these times, in all directions. It was possible that in Wales there might be poor people who had no means of keeping beer over from Saturday for their Sunday dinner; and he would suggest that a clause should be inserted in the Bill allowing public-houses to keep open for an hour or two on Sunday. Would the hon. Gentlemen who were so anxious to support morality propose such a clause? The philanthropists, in his opinion, were overdoing these things. There appeared to be no doubt that Sunday closing had produced a good effect in Ireland, because so much drunkenness was not seen as formerly; but he (Mr. Shaw) had to drive six miles to church on Sundays, and he had never seen
  1778
  many drunken people in the country as since the passing of the Irish Bill. It was a curious thing that both the religious people and the publicans should be quite at one as to the good effect of Sunday closing. They did not see so many drunken people as hitherto—that was to say, the religious people did not see so many drunken people; but the publicans sold more than ever. Since the passing of the Bill he had travelled a good deal about the country, and had come to the conclusion that, although whisky drinking was less common than it used to be among the middle classes, it was not among the working classes—in fact, there was more drinking among the working classes. The philanthropists might go on in this line; but they were not doing the people a bit of good. The remedy for drinking habits was to be found in other channels. He was not surprised at the Irish people turning into the public-houses from their wretched cabins. If, instead of political agitation and the keeping up of "shams," the philanthropists used their money in endeavouring to raise the moral and social position of the people, it would be much better occupied, and they would begin to find their objects realized. He did not think those objects were to be gained by measures of this kind.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, that as the Representative of one of the largest seaport towns in South Wales (Cardiff), where the population was very mixed, he was perfectly astonished at the enormous preponderance of public sentiment there in favour of this measure; and he felt it his duty to say that that was not by any means a religious movement, or a religious movement only, but one which was sympathized in by the people as a whole. Not less than 82 per cent of the population of Cardiff were in favour of that measure, and when the ratepayers were impartially canvassed it was found that only 4 per cent were prepared to declare against it. He hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass through all its stages without opposition.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 17: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 193.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

BANKING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. Anderson, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Charles M'Laren.)

[BILL 46.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: The object of this Bill is to get rid of a monopoly which applies more or less to the whole country; but which applies in a pre-eminent degree to Scotland. When Sir Robert Peel passed his Banking Acts of 1814–5, the effect of which was to give a monopoly of note issue to a certain number of existing banks, he allowed no banks afterwards established to have any right of issuing notes. It is, however, incredible that it was the intention of those Acts to give a perpetuity of that monopoly, either of the note issue of the country, or of the trade in banking; and I have no doubt had Sir Robert Peel lived he would, shortly after the passing of them, have passed other Acts to get quit of that monopoly, and prevent it being crystallized as it has now been, until the banks believe they have a right to it, and that it would be an interference with their rights to take it from them. In England the monopoly has not been so completely established as in Scotland, for the simple reason there have been no £1 notes in England; and, therefore, the issue of bank notes is not of the same value to the English banker as it is in Scotland. But in Ireland, if not quite so great, the monopoly is nearly as great as in Scotland. There has been little done in Ireland since 1845 in the establishment of new banks, and the Act of Sir Robert Peel has been the cause of that. The object of the present Bill is to do away with that monopoly, by enabling any bank, whether an existing or a new bank, to have a note issue based on Government securities, in order that the notes might have a security, which the bank notes now existing do not have. The notes I propose to be based on Consols are to be payable on demand in gold; therefore, it would be absolutely necessary for all banks that take advantage of this Bill, and adopt an issue of their own—it would be necessary for them to keep such a reserve of gold in hand as would redeem the notes to any extent they might be asked for. The total amount I propose to issue, and
1780
which may be issued in this way, is £70,000,000 sterling. Now, £70,000,000 to be added to the note circulation of the country may, in one point of view, be considered a large sum; but it is not so when it is properly considered. The present gold circulation is probably not less than from £100,000,000 to £120,000,000. That circulation of gold is simply rubbing about in the pockets of the people, getting worn away and deteriorated, and every now and then we have to make up a loss of £500,000 or so, that arises simply because of this rubbing and the processes of artificial sweating that go on. The paper circulation will be redeemable in gold, and would not be subject to such deterioration. It would be a great improvement upon the present system; and I do not doubt if the people in England had the opportunity of taking £1 notes, if they wanted to have them, to any large extent, that the £120,000,000 now circulating amongst the people would be greatly reduced. That gold is now circulated entirely unprofitably, and the idea that it is a good thing to keep gold in circulation, and that if you have a paper circulation you will drive the gold out of the country is perfect nonsense; because if it is needed for your circulation, you cannot use it for any other purpose, and I want to free it from that circulation in order that it may be used for some other purpose, and that the country may have the profit of its own currency by charging the bankers an interest of 2 per cent on the notes they are allowed to issue. These are the principal objects of the Bill. It is a national Bill, and applies to Scotland, England, and Ireland. Its principal use would be adding from out of that £70,000,000 a considerable sum to the note circulation of England; but it would add nothing to the note circulation of Scotland, as we have all that we require. That circulation, however, has the disadvantage that the notes are only being circulated by certain banks, and that this monopoly of issue gives a monopoly in the trade of banking also. If it were open to new banks to start in Scotland, those banks would step in for a share of the circulation, but would not add £1 to the amount of note circulation already in use in Scotland, because it is not needed, being at present, as I have said, sufficient to meet every requirement. It would not make

1781
much difference to Ireland. As regards England, the effect would be to take a great quantity of gold out of circulation and substitute for it £1 notes. There would be no kind of forcing the circulation; it would only give the people the opportunity of taking the notes if they wanted to have them, and the Bill would not force them upon any unwilling district in England. I myself have not the slightest doubt, if they had that opportunity, they would avail themselves of it largely; and for that reason I have named the maximum at £70,000,000, and no further privileges could be given without further application to Parliament. The first operative clause is to institute an administrative officer to be appointed by the Treasury. The object of that is that there shall be someone directly connected with the Government, and under the control of the Government, who shall be responsible for the acts and doings of all the banks of issue in this country. Even if this Bill were not to pass at all, I hold it is absolutely necessary such an officer should be appointed. When the City of Glasgow Bank failed, not long ago, it was found that the managers of that bank had tampered with the gold reserve. They had made Returns for years to Government of the amount of gold they had in reserve against their notes, and those Returns were proved to have been fraudulent. Returns of this kind have been systematically made to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes since 1844–5, and during all those years nothing has been done to check them or to examine them; they have simply taken them for granted as they came to hand. If there had been an officer such as a treasurer to the banks, commissioned as I propose, to come in between the banks and the Executive, such a fraud as that which was committed by the City of Glasgow Bank would have been impossible; therefore, quite apart from the other provisions of this Bill, I consider the appointment of such an officer highly desirable. Having appointed him, his purpose should be to take charge of such Government securities, Consols, and others as are deposited by the banks for the amount of the note issue they propose to use, and which they are not bound to take advantage of to any larger extent than they please, but when they take it they must pay 2 per cent for
1782
it. I propose, as some concession to the existing banks of issue, to allow them to keep the issue they now have for 10 years free, without any charge, then for a second term of 10 years on payment of only 1 per cent for the note issue, and after that period of 20 years has expired, all existing banks, both the old ones and the new ones, would come on the same footing, all would pay the 2 per cent to Government for the privilege of issuing notes to the country. This is not exactly the same as a State issue; but it has a great many of the advantages of a State issue, and it would be much more easy to adapt it to existing conditions than it would be to cancel all existing notes, and for the Government to establish a new system of Government issue. This proposal would have the advantage of giving the country a large part of the profit of the currency of the country, which, at present, is either lost altogether by people using gold uselessly, or monopolized by the banks of issue. It may, perhaps, be said that the banks of issue, if they had to pay 2 per cent, would have to make their charges to the public so much higher to cover that; but that, I maintain, is not a correct argument. The public and the customers of the bank are not identical. I would have no objection to the banks charging their customers higher, if they found it necessary to do so. I do not believe they would find any necessity for such a thing, because at present the banks pay very much too high dividends; but supposing they did, that would not be charging it upon the whole; whereas the benefit of charging the 2 per cent on the circulation would be a benefit to the whole nation, because the 2 per cent would go into the Revenue of the whole country, and if there be any profit on the note issue it ought to be held by the country. Well, Sir, there are many clauses providing for safety of issue and for redemption. I believe one of the objections made to the Bill will be that I am proposing to add £70,000,000 to the note circulation of the country without being dependent in any way on the flux or efflux of gold. That is quite true; and I will explain why I propose that. One reason why I do not think it necessary to make a new currency depend on the flux or efflux of gold is that the currency of the country is a matter affecting home trade; whereas efflux

1783
and influx of gold should affect only foreign trade—the domestic transactions of the country ought not to be so hampered, merely because £1,000,000 or so of gold may leave the Bank of England—and that all we want is a currency in the country to enable us to carry on the daily transactions. Another reason is, I do not look upon it in the light of new circulation, because the £1 notes which I propose to issue would not go out without displacing something else. I mean by it to displace gold that is at present uselessly and perniciously employed, losing interest, and wasting away in the pockets of the people. I do not know what other objection may be raised to the Bill. It applies to the three countries; and the two largest benefits will be these—one giving to England the choice of £1 notes, if it desires to have them; the other, and the principal one, to the benefit of Scotland—the breaking of the bank monopoly that has existed there since 1845. Since the Bank Act was passed by Sir Robert Peel in 1845 not one single now bank has been established in Scotland. Though the population has increased, though the wealth and trade of the country have enormously increased, not one bank has been added, but several banks have ceased to exist; and, consequently, our banking is absolutely a greater monopoly than what Sir Robert Peel made it by his Act. I might go on to explain it is a pernicious monopoly; but it is almost unnecessary to do that to a Free Trade House of Commons, as every monopoly is pernicious. But this monopoly is specially so. It is pernicious to our local trade in every way, because, in order to keep up their large dividends, they charge much larger rates for discounting and banking facilities in Scotland than the London bankers do for their customers in London, and the Scotch banks are able to do that entirely in consequence of this monopoly. They have a meeting in Edinburgh once a week or once a fortnight at which they fix the future rates that are to be charged, and in consequence no one can say anything to them. They can do what they like, and, as a matter of fact, they do, because they know that no new bank can be started to oppose them. The consequence is that they systematically charge the high rates to which I have alluded. Well, Sir, another great ob-
1784
jection to the system that I may specially mention is that the banks in Scotland are not sufficient for the amount of accumulated deposits in the country. Those banks have something like £80,000,000 of deposits in their hands, and they are unable at the high rates they charge to employ the whole of those deposits in Scotland, and in order to keep up their charges, they send large sums of money to compete with the London bankers in the London markets. They discount to London merchants in London at a lower rate of discount than they do to their own merchants in Glasgow and Edinburgh; therefore, the money they have in their hands, which is essentially Scotch capital, is sent to London, and used to compete with the London bankers. Under this Bill, if it be fortunate enough to pass even in a limited form, and only apply to Scotland, that monopoly and pernicious system would be broken down, new banks would be able to be started and get some share in the business, and merchants would not be systematically oppressed as they are now. I have heard of many cases of the greatest oppression on the part of those bankers. A man is not able to speak out his real opinion on this question in Scotland. There is the most complete slavery of opinion there on the question of banking. They can do what they like with the Scotch merchants, and the merchants cannot say a word about it. I was told the other day that a merchant had been so grievously wronged that he went to a lawyer to know what he was to do, and the lawyer, a prudent man, said—"Just pocket it, and do nothing; because if you do anything you will be 'Boycotted' by all the other banks, and need never expect to do any profitable business in this town again so long as the monopoly exists." I shall propose, if this is objected to now as a general Act, to re-introduce it next Session in a limited form, applying to Scotland alone. In its general form, it undoubtedly interferes with some of the exclusive privileges of the Bank of England; and as, in all probability, the Bank of England would refuse to consent to the Bill, it was necessary to put in a clause enabling the Treasury to go to the Bank of England and give them notice of an intention to terminate their contract, and no doubt that would bring them to reason within the year that you, Sir, have the right to

1785
give them notice for the termination of the contract, and then matters might go on as before. But if the Bill is limited to Scotland, it would be unnecessary to mention the Bank of England at all in the Bill, as the Bank of England has not for its notes even "legal tender" in Scotland. I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going into a long discussion on other currency questions, and I will conclude by moving the second reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
MR. R N. FOWLERsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to oppose the Bill, because it struck him as a strange thing that a Bill affecting the whole of the United Kingdom should be brought in by three Scotch Members. [Mr. ANDERSON: Two Scotch Members.] He was aware that one of the three was the Representative of an English constituency; but, if he was not much mistaken, that hon. Gentleman was the son of the late senior Member for Edinburgh, who was much respected in the House, and he therefore took it that all his ideas of banking matters had been obtained in Scotland. Be that, however, as it might, he thought that, in a Bill of the present description, at least the names of one English and one Irish Member ought to have appeared on its back. He was, however, opposed to the Bill on other grounds. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had complained of the banking system as a monopoly; but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) believed it was perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman to start a bank in Scotland as soon as he chose. One would, indeed, have thought that the hon. Member, holding the position he did as senior Member for the largest constituency in Scotland, would have been a very suitable person to act as Chairman of a Joint Stock Bank, or he might, as a private individual, start a bank of his own. If, therefore, the state of matters in Scotland was as he had described, then he could not but think that the hon. Gentleman had his remedy as a private individual, rather than as a Member of the House. It might be perfectly true that the note circulation was a monopoly; but there might be a great deal of good banking business done apart from that note circulation. In the
1786
City of London there was no bank that had a note circulation. They carried on their business quite independent of any such circulation, and that fact seemed, he thought, to point out that at least one bank might be established in the city of Glasgow without a circulation. His principal objection, however, to the Bill was this—that the subject was too large to be dealt with by a private Member. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman had, to a certain extent, achieved his object. He had made his speech, and had an opportunity of pressing his views upon the attention of the Government. He could not expect the Bill to pass that Session, seeing that it was of so sweeping a character. It was 50 years since £1 notes were abolished in England, and there bad been no wish expressed in England for the revival of those notes. If those notes were to be revived, it was a question of so much importance that it could only be dealt with satisfactorily by Government; and there were, he thought, certain advantages in the present Government taking this matter in hand, because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was, he believed, the only survivor of Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, and was, therefore, in a particularly good position to consider the whole question when he had a little more leisure than he was likely to have that Session, and make any alterations that he considered desirable in the Acts of 1844 and 1845. Personally, however, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) thought that the present system of notes was perfectly satisfactory; and, in these circumstances, he was opposed to the circulation that the Bill proposed, of 70,000,000 of £1 notes. He begged to move its rejection.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) in thinking that the measure was of such a sweeping character that it ought not to be put forward on the responsibility of a private Member. It was a matter that should be dealt with by the Government if taken up at all. But that was not his only objection. The hon. Member for Glas-

1787
gow (Mr. Anderson) had attached great importance to the issue of notes; but it seemed to him that this was a mistake. The fact was that merchants could carry on a very large business, day after day, and never see a bank note. That was, in fact, done by many people in London. The business of the country depended upon the capital which there was engaged in business, and on the intelligence of those who used it. If they had abundance of security to offer, they would have no difficulty in carrying on transactions. It was the people who had no securities to offer that made the complaints. He looked with great suspicion upon that disposition to increase the circulation of notes. It would, he thought, be a most curious point if they could ascertain what number of notes were actually circulated for the purpose of business day after day in this great city. He believed the House would be perfectly astonished by the remarkably small number of notes so used. Then there was another point. The hon. Member for Glasgow had talked about the internal circulation as having no connection with gold. He differed from him in the view entirely. The English of it seemed, indeed, to be to drag them back to the old unscientific system of currency which was in operation 70 or 80 years ago. The principle which Sir Robert Peel had given effect to was that the circulation of the country should fluctuate with the gold that was in the country, and this was the true principle on which the circulation should be conducted. He should be very sorry to go back to an uncertain circulation of notes, and he hoped they would keep to their present scientific system, with one exception, on which, indeed, he agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow—namely, in regard to the £1 note. He was one of those curious persons who thought there was no reason why the £1 note should not be a good thing for England as well as for Scotland and Ireland, and he hoped the Government would take into consideration before long the question of £1 notes; because, if these were brought into use, he believed they would liberate £30,000,000 in the shape of bullion which was now really useless. They would also be found very useful for the transmission of small sums through the Post Office. So far he agreed with the hon. Member for Glas-
1788
gow; but he could not go beyond it. All the other parts of the Bill were objectionable, especially that part taking away the privileges of existing banks. He was very much surprised at what the hon. Member had said about the people of Scotland being oppressed by the banks. He never knew a more independent people than the Scotch, and it struck him as strange that matters should be represented in this way. No doubt there might be people with large overdrafts who thought they had cause of complaint; but people with a large balance at their credit were not likely to be oppressed. He believed, indeed, that the banks of Scotland had done enormous benefit to the country. He recollected very well that a friend of his had told him that he had been taken to see a well-cultivated valley in Sutherland, which, he was informed by the agent of the owner, had been brought under cultivation by the banks—that was to say, the banks had advanced the money to the farmers, who otherwise could not have effected the improvements. And yet they were told that the banks oppressed the people. They might, perhaps, be the oppressors of an impecunious few who could not pay their debts; but he did not think they were oppressors of the general community. He regarded the Bill as one which was absolutely uncalled-for, and should therefore support the hon. Gentleman opposite in his opposition to it.
MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was utterly opposed to the scope of the Bill, whether it was sought to apply it to Scotland or England separately, or together, and hoped the House would emphatically reject it. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had spoken of the Bill as affecting only their domestic currency; but he had lost sight of the connection between that currency and their foreign indebtedness. If it were not that their business was managed with great skill, their present metallic reserves would be decidedly insufficient. It was only because of a skilful arrangement of banking and finance transactions that they were able to do with so small a metallic reserve as they had. If they were a country living on their own resources, having no foreign indebtedness, then there might be some argument brought forward in support of the Bill; but, seeing that they lived almost entirely on

1789
their foreign trade, it was quite different. When, it might be, a calamity occurred through a bad harvest or otherwise, and they became largely indebted to foreign countries, and had to export £2,000,000, or £3,000,000, or more of gold from the Bank of England, there was an immediate contraction in the circulation of the country leading to disastrous consequences often. There was, he thought, no force whatever in what had been said about the City of Glasgow Bank. Because the Directors of that bank had tampered with their gold reserve, it was argued that there should be no gold in the vaults of the bank. But if men wanted to commit fraud with gold, they might tamper with securities as well. The men in question were in collusion to commit fraud in any shape that offered, and so the argument of the hon. Member fell to the ground. The Bill was monstrous in its conception, and he was perfectly sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow had not the sympathy of Scotch business men in bringing it forward. He trusted the hon. Member would not press it.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he felt bound to join in the appeal just made that the Bill should not be pressed upon the House, though he sympathized very much with the circumstances which had induced the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) to introduce it. He certainly objected to the extension of such a measure to England, and thought it would have been better if the Bill had been confined to Scotland. The fact that there were only about half as many banks in that country now as at the time of the passing of the Bank Acts was, no doubt, due to the monopoly of circulation which those banks possessed. There could be no doubt, therefore, that that monopoly demanded the serious consideration of Government; but in England there was no such monopoly. The existing Scotch banks, he would admit, had been most honourably managed; but it was none the less important that there should be the power of starting new banks. Thus far he agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow; but he was unable to accept the Bill, because he thought the remedy provided by it was worse than the evil. This Bill raised very grave questions, and proposed to place our currency on an entirely new basis. In the first place, it proposed the re-issue of £1 notes.
1790
He thought that before taking any such step as that the matter should be carefully looked into by the House, for it must be remembered that, notwithstanding their undoubted convenience, these notes were deliberately abandoned after long trial. Their experience of the use of such notes had not been of an assuring nature, for they found when they were in use in this country they led to an enormous amount of forgery. It was often said that £1 notes were not forged in Scotland; but if he were not afraid of wearying the House with details, he thought it would be possible to explain the reason of this. He did not say, indeed, that with the improved methods of the present day as regarded engraving forgery might not be prevented; but they ought surely to have evidence on the point, and it seemed to him that the diminution of forgery was much more due to facility in tracing the notes than to the improvement in manufacture. Without, then, sharing the late Member for Waterford (Mr. Delahunty's) opinion, that all the troubles of Ireland were due to £1 notes, he was not prepared to see them re-issued in England without very careful consideration. If a Committee were proposed to be appointed to re-consider the whole question raised in the Bill, he should certainly have to consider the matter before he could see his way to opposing its appointment. Again, the Bill would replace sovereigns by paper money. He would not enter into the difficult and intricate, though interesting, question whether a metallic circulation was desirable or not. The House would, however, remember that the highest authorities had been of opinion that it was very desirable to maintain our gold circulation. They had considered that it was a security to commerce, that it enabled them more easily to meet adverse exchanges, and to tide over periods of depression or of bad harvests, and that these advantages far outweighed the loss of interest which it involved. Considering the enormous magnitude of our transactions, it was obviously most desirable to retain a large stock of gold. He must admit in passing that it was anomalous and not just to England that the undeniable burden of maintaining a stock of gold for the advantage of the whole United Kingdom should fall on England alone. He submitted to

1791
the hon. Member for Glasgow that even if these authorities were mistaken, if the advantages of a gold circulation were chimerical, still, they ought surely not to reverse their policy on so vital a question without careful inquiry and ample time for discussion and consideration. Again, there were financial authorities who considered that such a Bill as that would tend materially to create panics. When the rate was low, there would be a loss, or, at least, an infinitesimal profit on the issue of such notes. At present, for instance, money lent from day to day was worth less than the 2 per cent named in the Bill. But, as the rate of discount rose, it would become more and more profitable to issue notes under the provisions of the Bill. Such notes would, therefore, be created, and, of course, would drive sovereigns out of circulation and out of the country just at a time when it was desirable that their stock of gold should be increased rather than diminished. The process would continue, and gold would gradually go abroad, until, at last, distrust would arise, the notes would be discredited and brought in for payment, creating a panic, and, finally, a crash, very injurious to the interests of the commerce of the country. He did not say that this would necessarily be the effect of such a Bill; but, certainly, many high authorities were of opinion that it would work in the manner mentioned. There were many other points raised by the Bill; but he trusted that the hon. Member for Glasgow would be satisfied with having had a discussion on this important question, and he hoped that House would not, without further consideration or inquiry, hastily tamper with the laws regulating the currency, the security and stability of which were so essential to the prosperity of the great mercantile interests of the country.
MR. SHAWsaid, the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had spoken of our currency system as a scientific system; but, if it was so, he (Mr. Shaw) could not say he had much admiration for science as concerned in the subject, for he was of opinion that nothing could be more unscientific than that system. Let them note, as an instance, the note circulation as it now existed. The hon. Member stated that the note circulation was based
1792
on gold; but was it based on gold? Nothing of the kind. The Bank of England was empowered to issue a certain amount—£11,000,000 in Consols—but beyond that it was bound to issue in gold. The Bank of Ireland also issued on Consols, and very seldom wont beyond its authorization powers; but the issue of none of the other banks in Ireland was based on gold. With regard to Scotland, none of its banking issues were based on gold. The same might also be said of the country banks in England; but he believed that, as a general rule, the banks both in England and Scotland were safe enough; but he believed, at the same time, that our system of common currency was perfectly absurd, and ought not to be left in its present state for a single year. He hoped most sincerely that some of the suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would be adopted. He disagreed with the suggestion that a Committee should be appointed to consider the question, for there could be no greater authority on the matter than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who understood the subject thoroughly; but when the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill some years ago, alike in some respects to the Bill of his hon. Friend, the Bank of England was up at once, and he had to drop the Bill. He hoped the Government would take up the Bill, because it was too much for a private Member to undertake. This was a subject in which all the great interests of the country were materially concerned, and a measure of this kind ought to proceed from the Government. At the same time, he did not feel the slightest jealousy because there were no Irish Members' names on the back of the Bill. As a matter of pure economy, there could be nothing more uneconomical than the present system, which involved a large amount of wear and tear, the cost of which was borne by the public. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of London said, if a certain proportion of notes were issued, that gold would go out of the country. He (Mr. Shaw) was at a loss to understand how that could be. Gold could only go out of the country if somebody wanted to buy something somewhere else; but, on the other hand, the effect of an improved and secured paper currency would be to

1793
bring into the Metropolis £30,000,000 in gold, which would stimulate greatly and regulate the trade of the country. At present, when more than a certain quantity of gold was sent away a panic ensued. There should be no such feeling as that in such a place as London. In his opinion, the reserve of gold ought to be double the amount at which it stood at present. The gold could only be got out of the places where it was now lying idle simply by keeping the reserve at a uniform amount, instead of allowing it to fluctuate as was the case at present. He considered the Scotch banks enjoyed a great monopoly; but he did not believe they were great tyrants. His own experience of banks was that, instead of combining, they did all they could to do business irrespective of each other. If one did anything unhandsome in one street, its neighbour in the next street was on the look-out for the customer. Some banks had been established in Ireland; but they had a loss of about 2 per cent in the note issue on their capital, and he thought they ought not to be weighted by legislation in that respect. The poorer a country was the more need it had of capital; but in a country like England, which was so rich and prosperous, it was possible to do anything without injuring it; but that was not the case as regards Ireland. In that country, where every pound and every shilling was wanted, to simplify the currency of the country was to do a good and useful thing. He believed the principle of the Bill was sound, and he hoped the Government would consent to carry out some such reforms as were indicated in the measure, as he believed they would be doing a wise thing in trying in some way to meet the existing evils.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I hope that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill (Mr. Anderson) will be contented with the discussion that has taken place, because I do not think that anyone who may be here present can doubt that this is a question far too wide and too important to be entered upon in the latter half of a Wednesday Afternoon Sitting. There is no question but that the Bill of my hon. Friend opens up all the principles of our banking legislation and of the Bank Acts of 1844–5, and in many respects it is based upon diametrically opposite principles from those
1794
incorporated in those Acts. In some of the provisions of the Bill, and in some of the arguments of my hon. Friend, I recognize principles which the Act authorized. My hon. Friend stated that, in his opinion, the profits of note issue should belong to the State. I think that is an opinion which Sir Robert Peel and his Colleagues would have frankly endorsed, and, as far as circumstances allowed, have acted upon. Secondly, he stated that there was no right of perpetuity of a monopoly of note issue. There, again, Sir Robert Peel would have agreed with my hon. Friend. They recognized for the time existing rights; but they most carefully guarded themselves against any assumption whatever that these privileges of note issue should be held in perpetuity. It is perfectly true that nothing has been done since the time of this Act to put an end to these exclusive privileges; but it must be remembered that these privileges were accompanied by various restrictions, and that Parliament has been very jealous, and I think I may say has always refused to allow the removal of those restrictions upon banking, unless it was accompanied with a review of those privileges of note issue. In the course of this discussion we have had some most interesting remarks made upon the results of this monopoly of note issue. I think that when we consider, that, in spite of the expanding trade and increase of the population of Scotland, the number of banks now in Scotland is very little more than half what it was in 1845, it is a most remarkable fact, and it is difficult to doubt that the possession of this monopoly of note issue, if it is the cause of this diminution in the number of Scotch banks, acts in some degree prejudicially to the interests of Scotland. So far I am able to go along with my hon. Friend; but there I am afraid our agreement must cease. His Bill is based upon principles in many respects diametrically opposed to the great Bank Acts of 1844 and 1845. The principle upon which note issue was regulated by those Acts was not, as the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw) said, that note issue should rest solely upon bullion; but it was, as I understand it, that the issue of notes should, under the system of those Acts, vary exactly, according to the same laws, as it would have done if it had rested

1795
solely upon bullion. That object has been fully attained. All those alarms which were so constant as to the convertibility of a note have ceased for ever; and I think it is a most emphatic testimony to the success of those Acts, that whereas in the early years after those Acts had been passed it was found necessary in times of difficulty to suspend their action, that has not been the result during the last 15 years. On the other hand, three suspensions of the Acts took place in little more than the first 20 years after the passing of the Acts. Another object of the Bank Acts was to maintain an ample supply of bullion in times of commercial difficulty. That object has likewise been attained; but that, I venture to say, would be entirely lost if the measure of my hon. Friend was accepted. He proposes to enlarge the currency by some £40,000,000 sterling. As I understand it, he would have £70,000,000, in notes, to be issued, in addition to what I may term the present authorized note issues; but would put an end to the amount now issued against bullion. That amount we may, for the purposes of argument, put at £30,000,000 for England and Scotland; and, therefore, my hon. Friend would propose that the banks should issue about £40,000,000 more than the present note circulation. I do not think there can be any doubt that this £40,000,000 of notes would displace, in process of time, £40,000,000 in coin, which would be exported abroad. The result would be that our amount of bullion would be diminished to that extent, and our amount is now narrow enough in this country. I will ask the House what is the loss of interest that is incurred upon this £40,000,000 of gold, compared with the loss by a money panic in this country? My hon. Friend threw out some hints that he would be prepared to limit the Bill to Scotland. Some of the arguments I have given would equally apply to that case; but I admit the whole question of Scotch banking is thoroughly one for consideration in this House, and if my hon. Friend should, in the succeeding Session, bring in a measure on this subject alone, I have no doubt the House would give it very careful consideration. I hope, however, my hon. Friend will rest satisfied with the discussion which he has raised, and will withdraw the Bill.
MR. ANDERSONsaid, that if the bringing in of the Bill had had no other result than the speech of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), he (Mr. Anderson) would have been justified in introducing it. That speech was a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the House on the subject of banking and currency. He was also pleased with the speech of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), because it showed a considerable advance on the banking ideas of a few years ago. He had admitted the desirability of replacing with something else at least £30,000,000 of the £70,000,000 he had put in the Bill. On the other hand, the speech of the hon. Member connected with banking on the other side of the House (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was decidedly consistent with Toryism in banking; but the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had, he (Mr. Anderson) was glad to see, arrived at an appreciation of the £1 note. That was a great gain also. He was glad to see that the feeling of the House was not so strong as it used to be against £1 notes. As to the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), he (Mr. Anderson) wished to point out the utter fallacy he laboured under that gold in the pockets of the people was of any earthly value in supporting the bullion reserve of this country. It must be used either as a reserve, or as a circulating medium; but it could not be both. When there was any drain on the bullion, how were the pockets of the people to support the reserve of the country? How were we to got it out of them? We could not get it except by issuing inconvertible notes. It was only by that means we could force it; and the more we tried to force it, the more the people would be driven to hoarding; and, therefore, the argument was a very great fallacy. However, he quite admitted that a question of the kind ought to be dealt with by the Government. But every great reform was a private Member's question for years and years before it was taken up by the Government. That was the reason he had brought it forward, and he yet hoped they would be privileged to see it become a Government question. In that case, the discussion which had taken place would be beneficial, and he would not trouble the House with a division

1797
on the Bill, but would ask leave to withdraw it.
MR. BOLTONsaid, he wished to correct a statement that had been made as to the number of the Scotch banks. The noble Lord on the Treasury Bench (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had represented the reduction of Scotch banks under the operation of Sir Robert Peel's Act as about one-half. The actual numbers, he thought, were from 13 to 10. [Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH: 19.] In point of fact, the reduction might be from 19 to 10, because a number of amalgamations had taken place; but the banks themselves, under other names, still remained in business. Three banks had failed after the passing of the Act. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had pointed out what he (Mr. Bolton) took to be an admitted fact—that the existing 10 banks in Scotland possessed a complete monopoly of the banking of that country; but he was wrong when he drew as a consequence of that monopoly the conclusion that charges were imposed upon the Scotch people which the English people did not bear. The only question was, whether a charge was made upon the collection of cheques in Scotland which was not made in England? It was true that the banks in Scotland did make a charge for the collection of cheques when they were sent to out-districts. But in England also, as far as his experience went, the banks did something of the kind. He had not yet heard that the Scotch people had made any complaint about the matter. The complaint that the Scotch people did make was that they could not, in consequence of the restrictions imposed on the right of issue, have that competition in banking which they desired. Whether it would be for the advantage of the Scotch people to withdraw that restriction which now existed as to the right of issue or not was another question; but the Scotch people did not desire to move in the direction of which the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University approved. What they desired was an unlimited right of issue, which would be opposed by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had told the House that the Scotch bankers were tyrants, and the people of Scotland the slaves of those tyrants. There were
1798
some Scotch bankers in the House who might be the so-called tyrants, and there were some Scotch Members in the House Representatives of those slaves. It would be difficult to get any number of Scotch Representatives to announce themselves as slaves of the Scotch tyrants of banking. For himself, he (Mr. Bolton) believed that there was no tyranny and no slavery. It had also been said that the Scotch bankers charged a much higher rate of discount in Scotland than they did in London. Although not a banker, but one of those slaves described by the hon. Member for Glasgow, he begged to explain that for the same class of bill the Scotch bankers charged the same rate exactly in Scotland as was charged in London. This statement he made on his own personal knowledge. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that a higher rate of discount was charged in Scotland on some classes of bills than was charged in London probably on the same class of bills; but he would have given more correct information to the House had he added also that had he compared Glasgow or Edinburgh, or any other large town in Scotland, with Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham, the charges on the same class of paper occupied the same position. As the hon. Member had given Notice of his intention to drop the Bill, he did not wish to detain the House with further observations; but he had desired to make those remarks as a justification of absent men—the great majority of the bankers of Scotland.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not want the public to suppose that they knew nothing about banking in London, and that everything was known in the country. He was opposed to any restriction on free competition in banking. He did not see why banking should not be conducted on the same principles as were applicable to other businesses, without State intervention. He did not think £1 notes or extended currency was wanted. He thought Scotland required the same straightforward system as existed in London.
MR. BUXTONdesired to thank the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) for his interesting speech, and sincerely hoped that the intention of the Treasury of taking up the question of note issue, as hinted by the noble Lord in his speech to-night, and in his Treasury

1799
Minute on Scotch Banks of March 24th, 1881, might before long bear practical fruit in some Bill which they would bring in. The subject could not be dealt with properly by a private Member. The proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would add £11,000,000 to the National Debt now kept afloat by the Bank of England.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed extreme regret that there should have been any objection expressed by a Scotchman to £1 notes. Scotchmen appreciated them, and thought that when a good £1 note could be got to do duty for bullion, it should be encouraged to do so. Scotland was quite satisfied on that point. The hon. Baronet who had spoken last but one, though a thorough Scotchman, must have been corrupted by residence in London.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn; Bill withdrawn.

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.

  APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Select Committee on Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill do consist of Nineteen Members."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  MR. NORWOODprotested against the omission of hon. Members with special mercantile knowledge from the Committee to watch the interests of navigation. The great estuary of the Humber, with its affluents, the Trent and Ouse, formed the drainage outlet of one-third of the area of England; and the Humber Conservancy were desirous that the trading interests of Hull, Grimsby, Goole, and Gainsborough should be directly represented on the Committee; and he ventured to name the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who was a large landed proprietor in Lincolnshire, as acceptable to the Humber interests. He would not go to the length of opposing the appointment of the Committee; but would only express a hope that the Government would give the question some consideration, as he was of opinion that some hon. Members connected with the trade of the great estuaries should be nominated.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in the absence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he could not give an answer to
  1800
  the observations of the hon. Gentleman. He was sure, however, that if the hon. Gentleman would not oppose the appointment of the Committee, his suggestions would receive every consideration at the hands of his right hon. Friend. He would also remind him that the commercial and practical element could not be said to have been omitted in a Committee of which the hon. Members for Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope and Mr. J. C. Lawrance) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) were proposed as Members.
  MR. A. H. BROWNcomplained that there was no hon. Member to be proposed on the Committee representing the upland proprietors. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. HENEAGE,in seconding the Motion, said, he objected to so large a number as five official Members being placed on the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. H. Brown.)
  MR. CALLANregretted that there was not an Irish Member to be proposed.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he also wished to point out that there was no shipowner mentioned for it.
  MR. HINDE PALMERhoped the Committee would be so constituted as to give thorough satisfaction to the persons and classes interested more particularly in the Bill. He trusted that the nomination of the Committee would be deferred.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he would agree, on behalf of the Government, to the adjournment of the debate.
  COLONEL MAKINShoped that hon. Members representing the uplands would find a place on the Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

THAMES RIVER (NO. 2) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to provide for the abolition of Compulsory Pilotage on, and for the Free Navigation of, the River Thames above Gravesend, and for the repeal of Acts inconsistent therewith; and to confer further powers on the Conservators of the River Thames, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Five o'clock.