HC Deb 20 May 1881 vol 261 cc1004-29
MR. MELDON

rose to call attention to the hours during which houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland are allowed to be open, and to move— That in view of the many and serious evils arising from drunkenness on Saturday nights in Ireland, and having regard to the evidence given before the Select Committees of 1868 and 1877, and the recommendation of the Lords Report on Intemperance of 1878, this House is of opinion that the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold on Saturdays in the large cities and towns having a population exceeding 10,000 should be materially and immediately shortened. The hon. Member said, the subject was of considerable importance, and was one which it was clearly within the competence of Parliament to deal. It was not so much a question between the general public and Parliament as between the publicans and the licensed victuallers and Parliament. The licensed victuallers, owing to previous legislation, were monopolists by virtue of various Acts of Parliament, and the hours at which public-houses should be closed were altogether within the discretion of Parliament, which had always regulated the hours during which the business of a licensed victualler should be carried on. The Resolution dealt with a very small point; but, at the same time, it was a point of vital importance. In Ireland the resident magistrates, police magistrates, and persons of all religious denominations were favourable to the closing of public-houses at an early hour on Saturday. It would not be right, he thought, to call upon Parliament to legislate unless a clear case had been made out; but in this instance he con- tended that the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of earlier closing. The proposal he wished to make was that on Saturday nights the public-houses in the large towns of Ireland should be closed two or three hours earlier than they were at present—namely, at 8 or 9 instead of 11. He believed that if they were allowed to remain open as late as 9 o'clock it would meet the entire necessities of the case, and he would suggest that that should be the restriction imposed in any measure that might be introduced upon the subject. There was another point he wished also to make clear, and that was that it was not necessary to make the restriction apply to the whole of Ireland. He did not think that the amount of drunkenness which occurred in the rural districts of Ireland was such as to call for legislative interference, and it must further be borne in mind that the places which supplied drink were also the shops where provisions were sold; and there were, therefore, good reasons why restrictive hours, which might usefully be made to apply to the large towns, should not be extended to the country districts. His proposal was that in all the large towns of Ireland having a population of 10,000 and upwards the sale of drink should be restricted by two hours at least, and if possible by three hours, on Saturday night. He wished to prove his case, as far as possible, out of the mouths of his opponents; and therefore he was anxious to call attention to the fact that the evidence which was given before the Lords' Committee on Intemperance, and before the Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, contained a general admission, even by those who were opposed to Sunday closing, that a large amount of drunkenness took place on the Saturday night, and that the evil would be to a great extent remedied by the earlier closing of the public-houses. The matter was one which was entirely between the licensed victualler and Parliament, for the people had never expressed a desire to have the public-house kept open until a late hour on the Saturday night, and many of those who represented the interests of the licensed victuallers had admitted that they might be closed without disadvantage. The evil which he was principally anxious to cope with was this. The artizan and labourer received their wages on Saturday night, and instead of expending them in providing the necessaries of life for their wives and families, they took them to the public-house, where they found their way into the till of the licensed victualler. The Lords' Committee on Intemperance, which sat in 1877, reported that almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drunkenness occurred on the evening of Saturday, and their Lordships followed up their Report by recommending that the hours not only on Saturday, but on all week days in Ireland, should be curtailed. Mr. Woodlock, a most experienced magistrate in Dublin, who had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, when examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, said the worst time of the week for drunkenness was decidedly the Saturday night, after the week's wages had been received, and before the wives of the men had been able to get hold of them. Mr. Murphy, the late Member for Cork, one of the most able advocates the publicans ever had in that House, was also in favour of shortening the hours on Saturday. Captain Talbot, an experienced Commissioner of the Dublin Police, believed that the curtailment of the hours on Saturday night would have a good effect. The next evidence was most important, being that of a very clearheaded, shrewd, intelligent, and able man, Mr. Dwyer, who for many years had been engaged in looking after the interests of the licensed victuallers as the Secretary of their Society. Mr. Dwyer said— I may say this much for them—the publicans—that if intemperance and an excess of drunkenness, which undoubtedly do exist much more on the Saturday night than at any other time, could be put a stop to, I would almost undertake for them that they would be willing to consent to that sacrifice. There was a large mass of evidence to the same effect. Mr. Tighe, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary at Belfast, was examined in reference to certain statistics as to Saturday and Sunday drinking in Belfast. He was asked whether 1,942 persons arrested on Saturday for drunkenness was a large proportion, and his answer was— Unquestionably a large proportion. The drunkenness on Saturday night in Belfast is something frightful. The publicans keep the public-houses open until the last moment, and the working classes spend the greater part of their money in them. It is a melancholy sight to see the working classes going home on the Saturday night. The arrests made on Saturday night afford no index to the amount of drunkenness which goes on, because the police do not arrest all who go home, in a drunken state. By far the greatest evil to be met was the way in which the working classes squandered their money in the public-houses on the Saturday night instead of taking it home to their families. He might mention one tremendous and startling fact. In the City of Dublin the police had been cautioned not to arrest persons who were merely drunk and incapable on the Saturday night. And why was this? It was because there was not sufficient station accommodation for them in Dublin, and hundreds had been allowed to find their way home who would have been arrested if it had not been for these instructions. Among the witnesses who gave evidence in favour of earlier closing on Saturday night, and as to the enormous amount of drinking which took place on that night, were Captain Talbot, Mr. Woodlock, police magistrate, Mr. Dwyer, Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Society, Mr. O'Donnell, police magistrate, Mr. Tighe, Sub-Inspector of Belfast, an Alderman of Limerick, Mr. Barry, County Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Galway, County Inspector of Limerick, several large employers of labour in Limerick, Dr. O'Shaughnessy, father of the hon. Member for Limerick, Mr. Beard, County inspector of Waterford, and many other witnesses from other parts of Ireland. The whole of these gave evidence in his behalf; and he might add that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly), while he was opposed to Sunday closing in Cork, was of opinion that the intemperance which took place on a Saturday night was a great evil. At that late hour he would not read further extracts from the evidence, but the whole of it was contained in the Report of the Select Committee; and he challenged any hon. Member who opposed the Resolution to quote the evidence of a single person either before the Lords Committee on intemperance, or the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, who objected to a shortening of the hours during which public-houses were al- lowed to be open on Saturday. On the contrary, it was admitted on all hands that the evil they must grapple with was the drinking which took place on the Saturday night after the working men received their wages. Sunday closing in Ireland had undoubtedly been eminently successful, and he believed that similar success would attend the earlier closing of public-houses on Saturday night. His hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) was a most persistent defender of the publicans; but, nevertheless, in answer to an hon. Member who had interested himself in the question of Sunday closing, his hon. Friend wrote a letter stating that— Although he honoured the motives of the advocates of Sunday closing, from a sense he had of his own personal responsibilities, he could not vote for them. If there were to be restrictions they should not be confined to the Sunday, but there should be something done to restrict the hours for the sale of drink on Saturday night. [An hon. MEMBER: Read on.] He had read all that appeared in the Report. If there was anything further his hon. Friend could read it himself. After this expression of opinion on the part of his hon. Friend, he certainly thought he ought to rely upon his hon. Friend's vote in support of the Resolution. The year after the passing of the Sunday Closing Bill his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) brought in a Bill for the closing of public-houses at 7 o'clock, not in the 16 large towns with a population above 10,000, but all over Ireland. The principle of the Bill was not challenged; but the only plea put forward on behalf of the licensed victuallers was one of delay. It was contended that it was too soon after the hours had been restricted on Sunday to ask for further restrictive measures. Upon that occasion the Bill, which was discussed on a Wednesday, was talked out. Before concluding his remarks he might, perhaps, be allowed to quote a few statistics as to the effect of keeping the public-houses open at a time when the artizans had been paid their wages, and were specially liable to be seduced by the temptations of the public-houses. In the year 1879, there were 30,000 arrests for drunkenness in the 16 large towns of Ireland to which he wished to apply the principle of his Resolution. Out of these 30,000 arrests no less than 10,000, or one-third, took place on Saturday. From 7 to 8 o'clock on Saturday night the number of arrests was 378; from 8 to 9, 462; from 9 to 10, 440; from 10 to 11, 535; and from 11 to 12, 665. From 12 to 1 the number commenced to decrease again, being 377 and so on, down to 161, 62, and 33, until Sunday was fairly ushered in. It would be seen that the largest number of arrests, 665, took place between 11 and 12. The figures were of a startling character, and when the fact was taken into consideration that one-third of the entire arrests for drunkenness took place on Saturday night, he thought the House would feel that there was absolute need for legislation in this direction. He was told that he was proposing to proceed upon wrong lines, and that people could not be made sober by Act of Parliament. He quite admitted that they could not be made sober by Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, the temptation might be placed as much out of their reach as possible. Much might be done even by Act of Parliament towards making the people sober; and to prove this he would quote the Returns of the number of arrests for drunkenness within the last two years, which had been placed on the Table of the House within the last few days. In 1876, the number of arrests for drunkennesss all over Ireland, except Dublin, were 73,118; and in 1877, before the Sunday Closing Act came into operation, they were 71,820. In 1878, after the Sunday Closing Act came into operation, they were 67,898, as compared with 71,820 the year before. In 1879, the number had decreased to 65,477, and in 1880 to 60,386. If these figures did not afford overpowering evidence of what might be done towards making people sober by Act of Parliament he did not think there was any use in figures at all. In Dublin, it must be remembered, Sunday closing did not come into operation altogether—the hours were only shortened; and yet there had been a perceptible diminution in the number of arrests. In 1876, the number of arrests in Dublin was 12,700; in 1877, 14,615; in 1878, 17,018; in 1879, under the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, they were 13,524, or a diminution of nearly 4,000; and in 1880, the number fell to 10,138, or nearly 7,000 less than the number before the Sunday Closing Act came into operation. He had no intention of entering at length into the question of Sunday closing; and he had simply quoted these figures in order to meet the argument that it was impossible to make people sober by Act of Parliament. He thought they showed conclusively that they could do something by legislation towards restraining drunkenness. He could show further, if necessary, that there had been a much smaller quantity of spirits consumed in Ireland since the Sunday Closing Act came into operation than before. The proposition he now made was a very reasonable one, and not more than he had demonstrated to be absolutely necessary. All that he asked the House to do was to affirm the principle that in the large towns where drink was excessively consumed, and where drunkenness took place, and where there were good markets, and plenty of facilities for procuring provisions without resorting to provision shops, which also sold drink, the hours during which the public-houses should be allowed to remain open on the Saturday night for the sale of drink should be curtailed. He did not ask for any extreme reduction. Two hours would be sufficient, and he would be content with closing the public house at 9 o'clock instead of 11. The principle involved in the Resolution had already been affirmed by the Select Committee; and every tittle of evidence was in favour of it. His case had also been substantiated by the hon. Member for Cork, the hon. Member for Dublin, the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Society, the Police Magistrates, the Constabulary, the Irish clergy, and by every man who had seriously considered the question. He hoped that the Resolution would be affirmed, and that the Government would be ready to yield to the express wish of the House on the subject.

MR. CAINE

seconded the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the many and serious evils arising from drunkenness on Saturday nights in Ireland, and having regard to the evidence given before the Select Committees of 1868 and 1877, and the recommendation of the Lords Report on Intemperance of 1878, this House is of opinion that the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold on Saturdays in the large cities and towns having a population exceeding 10,000 should be materially and immediately shortened,"—(Mr. Meldon.)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. DALY

said, he rose to oppose the Resolution, on the same grounds which had induced him to oppose similar restrictions before. His hon. Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had laid great stress upon the statistics he had quoted; but he thought it was unfair for his hon. Friend to have quoted statistics from a Paper which had not yet been presented to the House, and the accuracy of which the House had no means of ascertaining.

MR. MELDON

said, the Paper from which he had quoted was an official Paper, and had already been laid on the Table of the House.

MR. DALY

said, he had understood the hon. Member to say that the Returns had not yet been presented; and, if he (Mr. Daly) was correctly informed, they were statistics of so recent a date as not to be available to those who wished to resist the conclusions drawn from them. He thought that his hon. Friend laid too much stress upon the diminution of intemperance since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, as it could be shown that there had been a falling-off equal to or exceeding that exhibited in the consumption of intoxicating liquors in the provision trade, the entail grocery trade, and the drapery and other trades. He joined with the hon. Member in his desire to diminish intemperance in Ireland. No one in that House had a greater horror of intemperance than he had; and he had had peculiar opportunities of studying the question, because his attention had been particularly directed towards it, in the City of Cork, in the years 1871, 1872, and 1873. He had always recognized it as one of the greatest evils affecting the working classes, and he had endeavoured to do his best to find out a remedy; but he did not consider then, and he did not consider now that he had had 10 years' more experience, that that remedy was to be obtained by restrictions of this kind. As to the quotations which had been made from the former opinions of himself and others at the time the Select Committee of 1877 was sitting, he wished to call the attention of the House to the conditions under which they were given. It was well recognized by everybody that a large and powerful organization, with a great deal of money behind it, and actuated, no doubt, by good motives, had exercised a great influence on public opinion in regard to the restriction of the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors. In common with other persons he had given evidence before the Select Committee. He was of opinion that it was conducive to the health and happiness of the working man that he should have the opportunity on the Sunday of obtaining a glass of beer; and, as a concession to public opinion, it was suggested that there should be a limitation of drinking hours on Saturday night in lieu of Sunday morning. He had read the evidence given before the Select Committee, and he believed the quotations read by the hon. Member for Kildare all sprang from the same idea that earlier closing on Saturday night should be accepted as an alternative for Sunday closing. It was so short a time since Parliament legislated that the new law might as yet be considered tentative and experimental. The advocates of Sunday closing claimed that the measure had been successful; but the decision arrived at by the State was that a certain period should elapse before public opinion was brought to bear upon the question again, and further legislation was attempted. He thought that pending the full trial of the present experiment any fresh legislation would be most undesirable, and to justify a proposal of this coercive character it was necessary to prove that a very exceptional state of things prevailed. He had listened carefully to the speech of his hon. Friend, and he had failed to discover any proof of exceptional drunkenness and disorder on the Saturday night such as ought to induce Parliament to extend the legislation already adopted, and which was of a tentative nature. He further complained, in reference to the agitation for early closing on Saturday, that it was fomented, encouraged, provided, and paid for by persons whose liberties would not be affected by it. The majority of the persons who got up the early closing meetings were persons who rarely or never entered a public-house at all. Therefore, although their motives might be the very best and purest, they were not persons upon whose mere dicta Parliament should consent to restrain the liberties and privileges of the working man. The proposal of his hon. Friend was calculated materially to abridge the liberties of the working man as to the means of enjoyment he would possess between the hours of 8 or 9 and 11 on Saturday night. Before the Legislature consented to impose a direct restriction upon the liberties of the working man, it should have incontestible proof that it was needed. So far as the speech of his hon. Friend was concerned, such proof was not as yet before the House. Following the line of the arguments of the hon. Member for Kildare, and listening involuntarily to the sotto voce comments of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), who was an equally ardent advocate for teetotalism, he failed to see why they should stop at 8 o'clock, and why they should not close the public-houses altogether. [Mr. BLAKE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Waterford said "Hear, hear!" and really that was the only logical conclusion at which they could arrive. There was no middle course. If they said it was necessary that the working man should be relieved of the temptation of intoxicating liquors, then, to be logical, they must shut up the public-houses altogether. But he held that the country was not prepared for so extreme a measure, nor, indeed, was the hon. Member for Kildare prepared to oppose it. It was important, he thought, for the House to consider whether the opinions of the people whose liberties it was proposed to curtail had been fairly ascertained. The daily life of the lower strata of the community was not a very pleasurable one. A man was at work from Monday morning until Saturday afternoon. He had to support himself and his wife and family by hard labour, to go to bed at an early hour, and to be out of the house again at daybreak. Practically, he had only Saturday afternoon and Sunday for recruiting himself, and it would be a very great injustice and deprivation to tell him that those were the only periods at which he should be unable to enjoy his pipe and his glass of beer because a small and contemptible portion of the class to which he belonged were in the habit of abusing the advantages now secured to them. It was a privilege which the Legislature ought not to interfere with, unless there were exceptional grounds to justify them, and no such exceptional grounds had been proved. There was one matter which had come under his own personal experience, and that was the character of the persons who were usually arrested for drunkenness on Saturday night. He was thoroughly acquainted with the City of Cork, and some years ago he had placed a self-imposed duty upon himself of clearing the Bridewell on Sunday morning, in order to ascertain who the persons arrested on the previous night were. He found that the large majority were habitual drunkards and unfortunate women; and as to producing the reformation of this class by closing the public-houses earlier on Saturday night, they might just as well endeavour to stem the tide of the River Thames with a pitch fork. It was a thing that it was impossible to accomplish, and it was absurd to suppose that by infringing and curtailing the liberties of decent, respectable men, who used the public-house in moderation, they would effect the impossible reformation of the habitual drunkard. He had already mentioned that the Sunday Closing Bill was only tentative and experimental, and until the result of that experiment had been fully ascertained the Saturday night question would not be ripe for legislation. Then, again, in regard to drunkenness, if what they desired was to reform people by Act of Parliament, they must bear in mind that a great deal of the drunkenness which prevailed did not arise in the public-houses at all. He was sorry to say that a great deal of it existed among classes who would not be seen entering a public-house; and he must say that, taking the lower classes, with all the disadvantages they possessed of badly constructed and ill-ventilated houses, and the temptations offered by the public-houses, they were as sober, class for class, as the class immediately above them, and the strata immediately above them again. In legislation so deeply affecting the working man, it was imperative that no hasty decision should be arrived at. He knew that the Resolution would only pledge the House to a principle, and that it would not immediately have the effect of law; but he held that it would be dangerous and unwise to affirm such a principle at the present moment, and that the advocates of Sunday closing should wait until their first experiment and achievement had been tested by its results. If Saturday night early closing was in operation, what was a man to do who wished to take his wife to a concert? It was one of the most refining, amusements he could partake of, and when he came away at 10 or half-past, was he to be debarred from having a glass of beer on his way home? Were they to compel that man to become a beer holder; and, as a matter of necessity, to keep drink in his house? He was acquainted with many men who did not keep beer or whisky in their houses, lest it should be a source of temptation to their children and servants; but the same men might very reasonably want refreshment after such harmless recreation as he had described. Then, again, how were they to deal with the theatres? In most of them there was a refreshment bar, and was a man who paid 1s. for a seat in the gallery, or 2s. to the pit, to have drink up to half-past 11 o'clock, while the poor man, quite as sober and well conducted, who, unfortunately, did not possess the 1s., was to be prohibited from obtaining a glass of beer after 9 o'clock? Surely a workman in Dublin or Cork should have the opportunity of getting a glass of beer after 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday night. What did they propose to do with him? Were they going to send him home to bed? And then see what they were doing all the while in London. For the convenience of people visiting the theatres, public-houses situated near those places of amusement did not close until half-past 12 on ordinary week nights, and at 12 on Saturday night. Then why should they compel houses similarly situated in Dublin or Cork to close three or four hours earlier? Why should they place a Coercion Act upon the working man because he was an Irishman, and turn him out of the public-house at 8 or 9 o'clock, whereas, if he happened to be in London, he could enjoy himself on the only day he had for amusement until 12 o'clock. There was manifest injustice in this kind of legislation. It was desirable that all their legislation should be in consonance with the wishes and feelings of the people, and they must not give the artizan reason to think that he was subjected to special restrictions. Therefore, before they legislated further in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for Kildare, it was indispensable that the necessity for it should be proved. He claimed to have a more thorough acquaintance with the feelings of the artizans in the large cities of Ireland than the hon. Member for Kildare; he had no interest whatever, good, bad, or indifferent, in the public-houses; but, regarding the question simply as one of individual liberty, and having paid attention to it for more than 15 years, the conclusion he had come to was that it would be unfair and unjust to debar the respectable and sober working man of reasonable and rational enjoyment on the Saturday night, because a very small percentage of the class to which he belonged made a bad use of the liberty they enjoyed.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think that the arguments for and against the Resolution could have been better stated than they had been by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who moved, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly), who opposed it. There was no doubt whatever that Saturday evening did present to certain classes more attractive temptations to drink than any other time in the week. On the other hand, it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had stated, that Saturday evening was a time of relaxation for a large portion of the population when their work was over, and those who were not drunkards might naturally feel that their liberty and opportunity of enjoyment were interfered with by the closing of public-houses at that time. If he were a teetotaller, it would be very easy for him to form an opinion upon the subject, and to say that it was better not to go to the public-house at all. But the question which the Government had to consider, with regard to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kildare, was how far the closing of public-houses would be fair to the community? The effect of closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays had proved to be a greater success than many of its advocates had expected. For his own part, he was sanguine of its results, and had been assured that public opinion in Ireland was thoroughly in its favour; and he thought that if that opinion were proved to be as clearly in favour of the present Motion, there might be a shortening of the hours of public-house traffic on Saturdays. A change of that kind might be advantageous; but it was one of those cases in which the Government must not go in advance of public opinion. The Resolution of the hon. Member would, if accepted by the Government, of course, pledge them and the House to immediate action; and they could not, therefore, consistently vote for it unless they were prepared to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject. He could not say he felt certain that the Government would be supported by public opinion in Ireland in doing that; and in cases where the actual repression of crime was not to be dealt with, but simply the consideration of what measures would be beneficial to the community, he was of opinion that no good whatever could be done by acting in advance of the feelings of the public. Therefore, he did not consider it would be in the interest of the measure which the hon. Member advocated if the House were divided upon the Resolution. If, however, the hon. Member proceeded to a division, he should feel it his duty not to vote for it; while, on the other hand, he was glad that the Forms of the House enabled him to vote for going into Supply—that was, for the Previous Question. The matter was one in which the Government must look carefully to the arguments on both sides, as well as to public opinion in Ireland, in order to see how far they would be justified in taking further action. What had already been done in closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays was in the nature of a strong measure, and one which ought not, in his opinion, to be followed immediately by another measure of a kindred character without very strong proofs that the people were in its favour. Looking at all the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Kildare would not think it necessary to go to a division; but if he did so, he trusted there would be no misunderstanding as to the grounds on which he felt it his duty not to vote for the Resolution.

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland awaited the expression of Irish public opinion upon this subject. That being so, he regarded the question as settled, because he knew what was the feeling in Ireland; and when the Government said they only waited for a fair and proper expression of opinion, as it was the duty of all statesmen to do, he could not but feel hearty satisfaction in witnessing the first stage of this most useful reform in connection with public-houses in Ireland. He would go farther than the right hon. Gentleman had done, and say that men who advocated social reforms of this character committed a lamentable error if they attempted to travel one inch farther than public opinion would warrant; because if they went in advance of the general sentiment in interfering with the habits of the people, unless they had secured the co-operation, not of a mere majority, but of a considerable majority, who were prepared to assist in making a legitimate effort, their moral effort, even when aided by the Legislature, would be a failure. He had all along held this view in the great struggle against the evils of drunkenness, and had always persuaded his friends that it would be a serious error to snatch a victory in the House of Commons upon this question until public opinion was prepared for it. He therefore felt a most encouraging reply had been received from the Government, and congratulated his hon. Friend to whose lot it had fallen to secure so remarkable a step towards the accomplishment of his wishes in regard to this question. He also felt some obligation to his hon. Friend the Member Cork City (Mr. Daly) for the very reasonable and forcible way in which he had put forward his views upon the subject. That hon. Member was brought into contact with the people in a most intimate manner, and was entitled to consideration for all that he had done in their behalf; but he would not hardly get up and say that Saturday night drinking was not an evil in Ireland in the eyes of the working classes, It was well known to be so. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Cork City, that the diminution of the consumption of drink in Ireland was due to the depression experienced in the liquor trade, as well as in other trades, and was not owing to the Sunday Closing Bill, he pointed out that there was greater depression in Ireland during the terrible years of famine—1846–7–8—and yet the consumption of drink had not fallen off. On the con- trary, while the industry and trade of the country was at that time perishing, the distillation and consumption of spirits in Ireland went on increasing; because the people sought forgetfulness of the horrors they were exposed to in the delirium produced by drink. At that late hour he would simply express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Kildare would be satisfied with the assurance he had received from the Government, and not proceed to a division. Whatever might be the wishes of the working classes, he would never attempt, either in that House or out of it, to force any law upon his countrymen in connection with this subject, unless with their own direct and absolute free choice. He objected, however, to its being said that the working classes in Ireland did not want reform in this direction while they were not trusted to vote upon it; and whether the question was referred to manhood suffrage, or woman suffrage, he was quite contented to accept the result.

MR. M. BROOKS

said, he had hoped the hon. Member for Kildare would have adopted the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and not put the House to the trouble of a division. Had the hon. Member done so, he should not have felt it his duty to address any observations to the House upon the question raised by the Resolution of the lion. Member. He regretted that the hon. Member for Kildare had not read the whole of his letter from which he had quoted, because, if he had done so, it would have shown that when Sunday closing was proposed early closing on Saturday was advocated. At that time a great interest was taken not only in imposing habits of sobriety on the people, but also in the improvement of their dwellings. The hon. Member for Kildare having alluded to the views of the learned Recorder of Dublin, he would read an extract which would show that they were somewhat in accord with that portion of his letter which had not been quoted. The learned Recorder said— Thousands upon thousands of the inhabitants in our great towns, notably in this city, live and die in places where a humane sportsman would be ashamed to whistle forth his spamel … … it is preposterous to think that society can be regenerated by sentences of penal servitude or the refusal of spirit licences. He trusted the House would think he was justified in quoting these observations of the learned Recorder of Dublin for the purpose of showing why his letter, to which reference had been made, was written, and what were the objects which he and others had in view. He could not but sympathize with the efforts of those gentlemen who desired to improve the social habits of the people of Ireland; but he was unable to believe that any good would result from closing the public-houses at 9 o'clock in the evening on Saturdays. The people did not go to bed at 9 o'clock. They remained up, as a rule, till midnight, and if they were not permitted to enter licensed public-houses, they would, in his opinion, be driven to enter houses that were not licensed. Therefore, in the interest of the people of the City of Dublin, he protested against the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Kildare.

MR. EWART

rose with pleasure to give his support to the Resolution before the House, and was only sorry that the hon. Member for Kildare had not brought in a Bill for dealing with the question. They had listened, in the course of the discussion, to a great deal of special pleading, on the part of hon. Members who opposed the Resolution, with regard to the enjoyments of the working classes and the liberty of the subject. For his own part, he was as much in favour of the enjoyments of the working classes as any hon. Member who had spoken on the subject; but he desired to see them supplied in some other place than the public-house. It was well known that in large towns there were other places besides public-houses in which the working man could meet with the enjoyment of society, and to which he could even take his wife to sup after the concert. Seeing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had appealed to public opinion upon this question, he thought he had a right to express his views as the Representative of one of the largest constituencies in Ireland. At the last General Election this was made a test question. It was a popular question, and he received deputation after deputation from the men, asking him to support the Motion. He promised with all his heart to do so, and explained his views on the subject, and during his canvas the women and the young people were constantly asking what his views were on the subject. When he expressed himself in favour of the early closing he received their blessings, and he believed that the House would have the good wishes of the whole of the constituencies of Ireland if they passed a Bill in the sense of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Kildare had quoted from many influential persons who were in favour of the Resolution, and he himself could quote a great many more; but he thought at that time of night it would not be wise to do so. He would, however, give his personal experience as to the great evil of keeping public-houses open late on Saturday evening. That was a time when money was abundant in the hands of working men, and debauch began on Saturday night and continued on Sunday, to the enormous injury of the men's families, who, in numberless cases, were badly fed and badly clad. The present system was one of the main supports of the monster evil of drinking which filled the gaols and workhouses and lunatic asylums. The Land Law (Ireland) Bill was a very important measure; but it did not deal with a larger question than this Resolution did. There was as much money spent in liquor as in rents in Ireland, and he thought the subject was worthy of a great deal more attention than had been bestowed upon it. His election experience proved that public opinion was greatly in favour of early closing.

MR. LEAMY

thought it would have been wiser if the hon. Member (Mr. Meldon) had first ascertained what was the real view of the people of Ireland before moving his Resolution. The hon. Member had stated that Mr. Dwyer was in favour of the Motion; but he understood from Mr. Dwyer that that was not the fact, and that gentleman had referred him to the evidence he gave before a Committee of the House to the effect that the trade would be entirely opposed to the Motion. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.

MR. DAWSON,

observing that the periods to which the hon. Member for Kildare had referred were years of depression, expressed the opinion that remedial laws, with regard to the use of liquors, would be useless as long as people remained in the wretched condition in which they were to be found in the crowded towns both of England and Ireland. The practice of sending children and young people for liquor was daily and hourly increasing in Ireland, and while the people remained in such a state of misery as they were at present in they must drown their cares by drinking, and if they were prevented from getting drink at the ordinary places they would have to take it home. Men who had to do physical labour required a certain amount of physical animation, and people living and sleeping in a close atmosphere became prostrate and unable to discharge their physical duties, and they had to seek in alcohol that resuscitation which the bad air rendered necessary. The real and proper way for dealing with this evil was, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) had said, to improve the social condition and surroundings of the people. The Mayor of Cork had erected artizan's dwellings and given the hard working people decent habitations, and it was proved that there was an immense demand for the space and accommodation these houses afforded. It was proved that without imposing any arbitrary laws of teetotalism, no one went to excess, and that morality, decent conduct, and sobriety characterized the people living in those dwellings. He looked to a permanent source of reform such as that with much more hope than to any penal legislation. Sydney Smith had said that to eradicate a vice, a virtue must be set up in its place; and if hon. Members wished to eradicate the vice of drinking and reform the people, they must give the people some innocent and practical means of pleasure in the place of drinking. He felt very poignantly how severely the people suffered from this evil. Other trades could be carried on with profit, and without danger to society; but the liquor trade could not. The profits of that trade meant the misery of the people, and he thought that the Government should take charge of the trade, of course paying compensation for interests they had allowed to grow up. People must have refreshment, and the Government should take the trade into their own hands, or confide it to Municipalities, so that people might have proper and well regulated enjoyment. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and many other Members, had said that the House had the opi- nion of the people upon this subject; but they had not the opinion of the people. The Irish artizans had no vote as those in England had, and the best thing that could be done to free the Irish people from excess was to give them the responsibility of a vote. That, he believed, would do far more to lead them to decorous and discreet conduct than any laws such as were proposed. The erection of artizans' dwellings and the promotion of every object for the social improvement of the people had always been matters of deepest interest to him, and such measures would be far more effectual than branding the people of Ireland as incapable of putting restraints upon their appetites. He hoped no such laws would be passed.

MR. BLAKE

said, that as the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) undertook to say, on the part of his constituents, that there was no necessity for earlier closing on Saturday in that city, he (Mr. Blake) requested permission to read some short extracts from the evidence of Mr. Woodlock, a police magistrate in Dublin, on the subject. Mr. Woodlock, from his own experience, as well as the reports made to him by police officers, asserted that on Saturday night drunkenness reigns supreme in Dublin, and it is with that particular time that you have to grapple. On Saturday night the wages of the working men are spent in the most degrading manner that can possibly be imagined. I have heard from police officers that there are parts of Dublin in which nearly every man, woman and child you meet is drunk. [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members who cried "No!" should remember that, in stating this, Mr. Woodlock referred to certain parts of Dublin, very low neighbourhoods it was to be supposed. So great was the drunkenness in such localities that the police found it impossible to make all the arrests that they would have been justified in doing. Mr. Woodlock, on this point, said— They ought to be arrested, but that the arresting of them wholesale would encumber the police stations, and would be impossible to carry out. He further attributed many of the offences that occurred on Saturdays to drinking, such as husbands beating their wives, sons their mothers, and individuals not related assaulting one another. Many petty larcenies he also attributed to the delinquents trying to obtain money to procure drink; indeed, many attributed their offences in that direction to that cause. Mr. Woodlock further stated that the proceeds of goods dishonestly obtained which were pawned were often found to have been used to procure whisky. He (Mr. Blake) had a good deal of experience of other towns in Ireland besides Dublin, and he believed that what held good with regard to it, so far as concerned the evil effects of drinking on Saturday evenings, might be said of many other towns. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might dissent, the truth was often unpleasant; but take similar low localities elsewhere like those described by Mr. Woodlock in Dublin, and he was afraid the same state of things would be found to prevail. Mr. Woodlock was a man of the highest character, intelligence, and great experience, and he made his statement under grave official reponsibility, and what he said was not to be regarded lightly. Hon. Members must be themselves aware how in towns many artizans and labourers were tempted, on receiving their wages on Saturdays, to spend much of it on drink, and that there could not be a greater benefit conferred on them and the class to which they belonged than to pass such a law as would keep them out of the public-house on Saturday nights. It was said that we ought to begin by improving the moral and social condition of the people. Well, he thought nothing could be better in that direction than keeping them out of the public-house. Since Sunday closing there was a decrease of nearly £1,500,000 sterling in the amount of drink consumed, and, no doubt, there would be a still further decrease if the hours for drinking on Saturdays were curtailed. The labouring population would have so much more to spend on food and clothes for themselves and families, and there would be less crime and misery. He went fully with the hon. Member for the borough of Carlow (Mr. Dawson) that if public-houses were shut up some substitute should be found to enable the people who frequented them to meet together for conversation and amusement. Drink abolitionists should do all in their power to provide substitutes in the way of workmen's clubs and coffee palaces, and he was glad to say that the latter were springing up in Dublin and elsewhere. They ought to be sufficiently subsidized until they became self-supporting. It was stated in that debate that it was absurd to expect that people could be reformed by Acts of Parliament. He denied that. There were plenty of instances to the contrary. Men were compelled to be honest and to desist from outrage by Act of Parliament; and there was no reason why they should not be prevented from brutalizing themselves, and bringing those who depended on them to starvation by an Act of the Legislature, shutting up drink resorts during certain hours. The United States and British America afforded the most triumphant proof of the good accomplished by prohibitory Acts of Parliament. He had lately been nearly over the whole of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. In the former he saw many towns and large districts where total prohibition was successfully carried out with the most beneficial results. Over the greater part of the North-West Territory of Canada Local Option had been adopted; and so sensible were the people of the benefits it had conferred that the people of a part of the territory that it was proposed to pin on to Manitoba absolutely refused to be connected with the latter unless the inhabitants consented to abandon the sale and use of drink; and, at the time he was there, a part of Manitoba was about to do so. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) had said that he had involuntarily heard him (Mr. Blake) say that he would close up public-houses all Saturday if he could. His hon. Friend was quite right; he had said so, and a great deal more, and that was that if he could he would close the mtotally every day in the week. Drink was the greatest curse to the community that existed; if it could only be abolished, what happiness, prosperity, and morality would ensue! He hoped, instead of applying such small remedies to meet this great and growing evil as Sunday and partial Saturday closing, that the Legislature would meet the strong demand that would soon be made on it to allow the majority of the people, if they thought well of doing so, to put an end to the greatest evil any country could suffer from.

DR. LYONS

said, that on the part of his fellow-citizens in Dublin he felt bound to repudiate the exaggerated charges that had been brought against them. He thought such observations carried their own refutation with them, and they were simply an example of that kind of rhetorical flight of which they heard something recently in this House. He was thoroughly conversant with the condition of the City of Dublin, he might say, owing to his avocations, at all hours of the day and night. He regretted to say that the use of intoxicating liquors was too prevalent, but anything approaching the condition of things that had been spoken of could only be described as a wild exaggeration that had no foundation in fact. There was no such thing as corruption of the members of the community by drink to anything like the extent stated. It was a very rare thing indeed to see young persons of either sex indulging in drink. Unfortunately, this was too much the case with grown-up persons. He did not intend at this hour to enter on the many branches of this important question. He would merely say he was one of those who, while a most strenuous advocate of temperance, believed that the extension of temperance among any large mass of the community depended upon their being furnished with a number of conditions for rational recreation which now, unfortunately, they could not command. In his opinion, one of the things of most practical importance was the more general extension of paying wages on the day before Saturday. It was unfortunately the case that wages were to a large extent paid on the Saturday, and the provisions for the Sunday had often to be purchased as late as half-past 11 or 12 o'clock at night. Until some practical remedy in that direction could be adopted, and until it became a general rule to pay wages on Friday, he did not think that much would be done in the way of improvement. Whether it might be desirable in a more advanced state of public opinion to restrict the hours of Saturday he did not say; but any attempt in the present condition of things in Ireland to force on an early system of closing would lead to the extension of what already existed to a great degree—the accumulation of drink at home and in quasi-clubs, indulged on the principle that stolen milk was the sweeter. But it was for the purpose of repudiating on the part of the people of Dublin the wild charge that was brought against them by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) that he had thought it necessary to make these remarks.

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to make one or two remarks on the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake). He did not know why a discussion on the liquor traffic, any more than a discussion on any other subject, should generate an unfair and irrational habit of mind; but he had observed that when any discussion on the Irish liquor question arose, it was impossible that it should be conducted at any length without involving gross and offensive charges against the general body of the Irish people. He had lived for many years in the City of Dublin, and during those years had walked on every Saturday night through its streets, and any such statement as that drunkenness reigned supreme was as fantastical a calumny as could be conceived. There were drunken men there as there were in every other city, and when seen they were regarded with as much dislike by the general body of the people. But it was altogether misleading to pick a sentence out of the Report of a police magistrate, who, as likely as not, was a person of a sour and Pharisaical turn of mind, and to quote such a Report as if it had the inspiration and authority of Holy Writ was too much. Just as a policeman was inclined to regard every man as a possible criminal, so a police magistrate, nearly every day of whose life for many years was spent in contact with the degraded classes of the community, came to see society through distorted spectacles, and mistook the condition of a part of that society for the condition of the whole. He would not trouble himself to reply to the statement that there were parts of Dublin where every man was drunk on Saturday night. Whoever originated such a statement must have formed an extraordinary estimate of the credulity of his fellow-men.

MR. CALLAN

said, he had known Dublin for many years, and he also knew the magistrate who had given the evidence referred to. He was one of those angular individuals, whose look, as they say, was enough to turn sweet milk sour. He was a pious magistrate, and was a fitting companion for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. With regard to the hon. Member for Waterford, there was ample refutation of his calumny. Mr. Woodlock said he had had his evidence from the police; but if the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had any other wish in the matter than to utter a calumny against his countrymen; if he had read the evidence of Mr. Inspector Coare, the head of the Dublin police, he would have found it went in an entirely opposite direction to that of Mr. Woodlock. He says— I have heard from the police that in certain parts of Dublin every man, woman, and child are drunk. And then he says— I speak unpleasant truths. I have personal experience of almost every city in Ireland, and that statement is true. He said the hon. Member for Waterford should not state that which he knew not to be correct—

MR. A. M. SULLIVAN

rose to Order, and wished to know if it was in Order to impute to an hon. Member that he had stated a thing which he knew not to be correct?

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. Member had, no doubt, made the statement hastily, and would see the necessity of withdrawing it.

MR. CALLAN

said, he would withdraw the statement that he knew it to be a calumny; but he ought not to make such a statement that he stated an unpleasant truth. It was not a fact with regard to any city of which he had knowledge, and he knew Dublin, Belfast, Drogheda, and Dundalk. With the exception of Limerick, and Cork, and Waterford, he knew the other cities of Ireland, and he knew that the charge was wholly incorrect. It was one which had no foundation in fact, and he hoped the people of Ireland, and the citizens of those towns, would see who it was that made the false and injurious charge with regard to the citizens of those towns. In the City of Dublin they had the evidence of the unpleasant Archbishop with regard to the Saturday and Sunday closing, and as to why he had changed his opinion from that of former years. He could quite understand the principle of some of his hon. Friends who wanted to close the houses in Dublin altogether; but he must enter his protest against hon. Members getting up in that House and quoting police evidence, and holding that as their justification for maligning their countrymen. He quite understood it in the passing of the Coercion Bill. If they had taken the evidence of the police with regard to that Bill, Irish Members would have passed that Bill with unanimity; but if they were not to take the evidence of the police with respect to outrages in Ireland, why should they place such confidence upon their evidence with respect to Saturday night drinking? As a former citizen of Dublin for five years, he knew that city, and could state that there was not the slightest foundation for the charges made by the sour, disagreeable, and angular individual referred to.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 33: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 207.)

Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Supply Committee upon Monday next.