HC Deb 12 August 1882 vol 273 cc1650-67

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. A. P. VIVIAN,

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said; I may state that I have presented a Petition from the county of Cornwall in support of this Bill, signed by about 100,000 of the inhabitants; and considering that the whole population is about 320,000, and that the Petition is signed only by persons over 16 years of ago, it represents a very large majority of the adult population. Among those who signed the Petition, the working classes, whom the Bill will affect more than any other, were largely represented; and in proof of the feeling of the working classes on this subject, I may mention that of 549 workmen engaged at a large foundry and engine works at Hayle 477 signed in favour of the Bill; 44 expressed themselves against it, and 28 were neutral; so that, putting these figures into percentage, we have 87 per cent in favour of the Bill, 8 per cent against it, and 5 per cent neutral. These are the men employed in one of the largest manufacturing establishments in Cornwall. Without doubt, this matter has been taken up by every class throughout the county, without distinction of politics or religion. We have at the head of our Association the Lord Lieutenant of the County (the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe), who at first did not feel inclined to take up that position; but who, having convinced himself that the Bill was desired by the large majority of the population, took the lead in the movement. Besides the Lord Lieutenant, we have the Bishop of the diocese (the Bishop of Truro), and a large number of the clergy and ministers of all denominations throughout the county. The mayors of the different boroughs are all in favour of the Bill except one; and of the 13 Members of Parliament, 11 are certainly in favour of it—nine on this side and two on the other side of the House; and the views of the other two I am ignorant of. These facts, I think, should convince the hon. and learned Member for Brid-port (Mr. Warton), who last night chal- lenged the idea that the movement had been taken up by the majority of the people throughout the country. When 11 out of the 13 borough and county Members are in favour of the Bill, that, I think, should be sufficient proof that the whole county is practically in favour of it. In Cornwall we are wonderfully situated geographically for the application of this measure. We have the sea on three sides, and the fourth side is bounded to a large extent by a large river. Besides that, we have no very large towns—the largest do not contain 15,000 inhabitants; and in moving the second reading I do so most conscientiously, in the full persuasion that the Bill is desired by the very large proportion of the people. I am convinced the large majority of the classes concerned is in favour of it. They simply ask for the same measure as has been given to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. They ask for this Bill because they feel that Sunday closing will be a benefit to themselves, their families, and to the whole county.

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

MR. WARTON,

in opposing the Bill, said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had not thought it worth while to occupy their attention for more than four minutes, and he only used one argument. The hon. Member pressed forward the Bill on the sole ground that the opinion of the people of Cornwall was in its favour; but what did it really mean? They all knew how Petitions were got up, and he did not put much faith even in the opinion of the converted Lord Lieutenant. It was very easy to go with the stream, and the principle of the Liberal Government was expediency, who did evil that good might come. The opinion of the people of Cornwall on this question was really of no concern, and, no doubt, the Petitions were got up at the various Dissenting chapels in a manner similar to that which took place in Wales last year. Hon. Members all knew what a flock of sheep would do if one of them went through a hole in the hedge, and that appeared to be the course adopted by the supporters of this Bill. They followed each other like a flock of sheep, and cowardly surrendered the principles of personal freedom and responsibility. He did not care for the majority of the people of Cornwall. He objected to departmental, county, or parish legislation. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, he did not think it dealt with the subject in the right way. The Preamble said—"It is expedient and the county of Cornwall desires." He never heard of so sentimental a Preamble, which implied that there were many things expedient, but not desirable. It was argued that because the public-houses were now closed on Sundays during certain hours it was desirable to extend the shutting up of the public-houses to the other hours of the Sunday. To say that because partial closing on Sundays had had good results, therefore it would be beneficial to close public-houses throughout Sunday was as absurd as saying that a man who found he had been eating too much would do well to abstain altogether from eating. There was another curious little point in the drafting of this Bill which he would mention. The Licensing Acts of 1872–4 were alluded to as though there had been a Licensing Act of 1873. Would anyone who wrote or spoke English naturally—which he supposed they did not in Cornwall—approve of this clumsy, stupid mode of wording the Preamble of an Act of Parliament? He did not think the Attorney General even, who would accept almost anything, would accept these words in an Act of Parliament. The great Lord Coke—the soundest lawyer, perhaps, this country ever had—had said the proper course where there was an evil to be dealt with was to define the evil and then to consider the remedy. In this case there was a remedy, but there was no evil. Was Cornwall a place distinguished for drunkenness? It was just the opposite. Looking at the Returns, he found that out of the whole population of Cornwall the proportion of convictions for drunkenness on Sunday was one out of every 100,000 on 10 Sundays. Would any man, except a fanatical teetotaller, say there was any argument for closing the public-houses entirely on Sundays in Cornwall? The chances were 999,999 to one against a Cornishman being arrested on Sunday for drunkenness, and this Bill was directed against the one. If the men who introduced such legislation cared twopence about facts and figures, they would take account of that. As- suming that all the Petitions which were spoken of were genuine, this Bill was merely a gross instance of the tyranny of democracy, the tyranny of people who, because they could not understand their fellow-men, determined to compel them to conform to their ideas. The 200,000 Petitioners were to trample on the remaining population because they, in their superior wisdom, thought it desirable their neighbours should not exercise the rights they possessed. Why should the minority of the population of Cornwall be trampled on because they happened to live among such superior and virtuous persons? He had had numerous letters from working men in Cornwall, thanking him for the efforts he had made to prevent this Bill becoming law. He knew, too, the pressure that had been used. Even in his position persons of superior social rank had, in a most unjustifiable manner, brought influences to bear on him upon this question. Of real temperance he was as much in favour as anybody; but this was not a question of moderation. The case of Ireland was no argument in favour of the Bill, for though the figures showed there had been a great diminution in drunkenness since the Sunday Closing Act, an analysis of the figures showed that the result was in no way owing to the Act, for the diminution was 27 per cent in the five largest towns to which the Act did not apply; whereas, where the Bill was in force, the decrease was only 14 per cent. And in Galway and Carrickfergus, when the Act was in operation, there had been a positive increase of drunkenness. Increased temperance did not result from such Bills as this; it resulted from the social and moral elevation of the people. Allowing the importance of Saturday Sittings for the furtherance of Public Business in extreme cases, he protested against hon. Members who had charge of Bills which interfered with the general comforts of the people taking advantage of those Sittings, when appointed for the consideration of Bills of a special character, with the view of taking Parliament by surprise, and getting it to give a second reading to their own measures. There had been a pledge given by Her Majesty's Government a week ago that such an abuse of Saturdays' Sittings would not be allowed, and he hoped that that pledge would be adhered to.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

If anything was wanting to commend this Bill to the House, it would be the character of the opposition, for a more wanton and unjustifiable waste of time I have never—

MR. ONSLOW

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is competent for the Home Secretary to accuse an hon. Member of having wantonly and unjustifiably wasted the time of the House in opposing this Bill?

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has wantonly and unjustifiably wasted the time of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for these expressions. I am bound to say I do not see they are out of Order.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I say that a more wanton and unjustifiable waste of time I have never before known in the House of Commons.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said: This second example of the character of the opposition makes it perfectly clear that my previous expressions need no qualification. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport says he does not care for the opinions of the people of Cornwall. I cannot approach the subject from that point of view. In these matters, as in others, the House is bound to consider the opinions of the people affected by measures passed in the House. But the hon. and learned Member himself is not always so indifferent to the opinions of the people of Cornwall. The hon. and learned Member denounces very much those people who float with the stream, and says the friends of temperance pursue their propositions without regard to the consequences. Now, it is a very remarkable circumstance that the hon. and learned Member, who blocks every Bill, has blocked this Bill during the Session. But there came a county election in Cornwall, and it was considered, even by persons who have expressed objection to this Bill, that it would not be convenient that a block to it should appear in the name of a Conservative Member during the course of the Cornwall Election, and the consequence was that the block in the name of the hon. and learned Member disappeared from the Bill, but re-appeared in the name of an hon. Member from Ireland (Mr. Callan), who has just attempted to count out the House. This is the history of the character of the opposition to this Bill, and of the manner in which the feelings of the people of Cornwall are dealt with by those who call themselves independent people. It is well that the high tone of virtue which has been taken up by certain hon. Gentlemen should be properly understood. So much for the protestations of the hon. and learned Member's extraordinary virtue in dealing with measures of this character. The reasons why I, on the part of the Government, shall support the second reading of this Bill, are the same reasons which actuated the Government in reference to the Irish Sunday Bill and the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill. No doubt, there are certain classes of questions which ought to be dealt with on the same footing for the whole of the community, and ought to be dealt with upon general principles as affecting the community at large. But there are particular classes of questions which are rather of local than of general application. I have always been of opinion that the question of dealing with public-houses is essentially a local one, and that it ought to be governed by the opinions of those in the locality. The House acted upon that principle with regard to the Irish and Welsh Sunday Closing Bills. I have not spoken of Scotland, because it is now a comparatively long time since the Scotch Sunday Closing Bill was passed. In such matters as these, the only question is, what is to be the extent of the area to which the principle is to be applied? When we have a whole county absolutely unanimous on the subject—I have received a deputation headed by Lord Mount-Edgecumbe, and representing persons of all politics, of all parties, and of all occupations, practically unanimously demanding this measure—all we have to do is to inquire what reason there is for it. Certainly the reason why the Bill should not be passed is not indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, but I was unable to find what it was all about; it seemed to be in reference to the block rather than to the question raised by the Bill. I have heard no arguments against the Bill. The House in two Parliaments has, with the consent of the great majority of both Parties, practically concluded that these are local questions, to be dealt with according to the sentiments of the community affected by them. That principle having, therefore, in my opinion, been wisely and firmly established, the only question we have to ask is—"Is there an overwhelming sentiment in this particular community in favour of the measure?" Of that there cannot be the smallest doubt. I do not believe you can find a dozen men in Cornwall who will say a word against this Bill. I am extremely anxious to see the hon. and learned Member for Bridport going to Cornwall and addressing the people in the sense in which he has spoken here—namely, that he was totally indifferent to the sentiments of the Cornish people. It seems to me the House has only to act upon the principle upon which it has acted in two successive Parliaments; and, therefore, I shall, on the part of the Government, cordially support the second reading of the Bill.

LORD ELCHO

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has spoken of the high line of virtue adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport; but I know of no one so great a master of high-sounding virtue when it suits his purpose. [Mr. CALLAN: It is all sham.] The question of regulating public-houses is a question of the majority interfering with the minority—that is to say, the majority who cannot control their own appetites coming to Parliament for legislation to enable them to do so, and to prevent those who are able to control their appetites from getting a glass of beer when they want it. On that point the Home Secretary once made a speech in a very different tone from that which he has now made. I remember the time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate for Oxford, and when he denounced, in words as eloquent and full of high-sounding virtue, any interference with the right of the people to get a glass of beer if they did not abuse that right, and he made use of the favourite expression—"What is this legislation? Call it by its right name; it is not paternal, it is worse than paternal, it is grandmotherly legislation." Now, for my part, I am in favour of the people managing their own affairs, and I am opposed, to this kind of legislation. I am not a Liberal, and why? Because I am in favour of liberty; and the whole tendency of this spurious thing which is called Liberalism at the present day is to encourage persons, who can put on the screw, to come here and ask for legislation—now for Ireland, now for Wales, now for Cornwall—and to put the screw on to obtain it. I detest drunkenness as much as my right hon. and learned Friend; but what I maintain is this—that the suppression of drunkenness ought not to be brought about by Local Option Acts of Parliament, but by elevating the people, so that they should look upon drunkenness with horror. It is the police and my right hon. and learned Friend who ought to deal with this question. If a man is drunk in the streets, take him up, and take him before a magistrate for punishment; that is the way to deal with him, and not in the way that is proposed now by this Bill. Although you uphold the principle of this Bill, yet you are not prepared to bring in a general Sunday Closing Bill for England. You know you dare not do it, because you cannot except the Metropolis; and, that being so, it shows the worthlessness of your principles—it shows the principle by which, you are guided in your legislation—namely, that you legislate where you think there is no fear of danger, and where you think there is danger you leave it alone. Here in London there would be such a row if you were to attempt to close the whole of the public-houses on Sunday that you dare not do it. Why is that? Because a large number of the people of London feel that they are not all drunken, that they have a right, if they choose, even on a Sunday, to get a glass of beer; but here in Cornwall you are going to allow a majority to tyrannize over the minority. The Bishop of Peterborough is, I suppose, as moral a man as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a bold assumption, after my right hon. and learned Friend's high moral tone to-day; but I still maintain that the Bishop of Peterborough is personally as highly a moral man as my right hon. and learned Friend. What does the Bishop of Peterborough say upon this question? He says he would rather see England drunken and free, than sober and enslaved. That is a sentiment that I heartily endorse; and if we do not take care, in consequence of this sort of legislation, what the Bishop of Peterborough calls the "odd man"—the crotcheteer who, if a temperance reformer, thinks nobody can be happy except by drinking water, and if a vegetarian, that nobody can be healthy unless they eat nothing but vegetables—we shall find ourselves bound hand and foot in the manacles of the State—slaves to the crotcheteers. I was not aware that this Bill was to come on; but I have been so touched by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, that I cannot sit still, because it gives me an opportunity to present the counter-view, which I believe to be the sound one. We owe this Bill to the Saturday Sittings, on which occasions you have a lot of rickety bantlings, with legislative syphilis running through their bones, brought forward and hurried through Parliament on these Saturdays. I see my hon. Friend opposite who is the high priest of Local Option (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The same principle runs through all this kind of legislation—that of the tyranny of the majority over the minority. That is the whole principle. It is to Caucusize the majority, and tyrannize over the country. Those who have water on the brain will not allow anyone to have any kind of beer. I think when you are dealing with this question of Cornwall Option you should recollect that the real question of Local Option has not been able to be discussed this year. It was expected to come on, and a deputation waited upon me and others; but I told them that I was a dreadful heretic and loved liquor.

Mr. SPEAKER

I must remind the noble Lord that he must address himself to the Question before the House.

LORD ELCHO

With all due deference to you, Sir, I was doing so. It has just been admitted that Local Option runs all through this; and I maintain that if the principle of Local Option is in the Bill, I am justified in pointing out what it means, and that it means much more than it professes, because, as I said to one of these gentlemen who waited upon me, what you wish to do is to knock in the end of every barrel of beer in the country. "Yes," said one of them in his zeal, "that is exactly what we mean; we want to run it away." I said—"Thank you; that will be heard in the House of Commons." Then I said—"You speak as if all the working men in England are drunkards." "Well, the majority of them are," these gentlemen said. We see what libels upon the working people of England these enthusiasts perpetrate. It is because I do not believe the working men of England, or anything like the majority of them, are drunkards, that I oppose this Bill, and protest against the majority being allowed to tyrannize over the minority, and I shall certainly divide the House against the Bill.

MR. ONSLOW

I protest, Sir, against Saturdays being used for the legislation of the crotchet-mongers. When the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was brought in—that was a Bill brought in by a private Member—I asked, as a Question of Order, whether there was a precedent for such a Bill being considered on a Saturday; and you, Sir, told me you thought there was not such a precedent. The practice, however, has crept in of Private Bills being set down for Saturdays, when constituencies expect their Members to be elsewhere and not in the House. With regard to this particular Bill, it is most remarkable, considering that it is such a burning question in Cornwall, that during the whole discussion there have only been two Cornish Members in the House, and from that fact I think I am justified in saying that the Cornish Members do not care two straws for this Bill. ["No, no!"] That is my opinion; and I am justified in saying the Cornish Members do not care two straws for it, or else how is it that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Vivian), who says "No," and who has been very patient in putting the Bill down day after day, cannot prevail upon his Friends to stop during the discussion? During the last Election, it was one of the catch-words at every polling-booth. [Cheers.] I know that, and I understand those cheers. I say it was a catch-word. "Will you, or will you not, go in and support this Bill?" And what is the result? When this Bill comes down to the House for second reading, there are only two Cornish Members present; and I say I am justified in appealing to any man of common sense, whether it is not the case that there is not such a love for this Bill, even among Cornish Members, as the hon. Member seems to think? I am one of those who believe that the Sunday Closing Bill has done no good in Ireland in the way of preventing drunkenness. I think there are some persons present who will remember what the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) said upon this Sunday Closing Question. He is a man of very great authority upon every question affecting Ireland, and he asserted here in his place that that Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland had done no good whatever in Ireland. Unfortunately we know that in Scotland the Sunday Closing Bill has not diminished drunkenness there; we know that Scotland is a more drunken place than any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions; therefore I say this question is purely and entirely a sentimental grievance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary says—"Go to Cornwall and speak to any decent man on this question." I know Cornwall very well, and have spoken to gentlemen there, and I hope they are decent men—I hope all Cornishmen are decent—but I know that many of the lower classes have been forced by some influence to sign Petitions. [Dissent] An hon. Member shakes his head; but I know they have been forced by some ulterior influence into signing the Petitions that have been presented to this House. I know many magistrates and land proprietors in Cornwall; and I know, as a fact, that in Cornwall it has got to this—that it has become wholly a political question. I do not say that a Conservative would have much chance in Cornwall unless he supported this Bill; but that fact and the Petitions presented from the county are no criterion of the feelings of the people. The hon. Member may say the opposition I give to this sort of legislation is on behalf of the publicans. [Lord ELCHO: Why not?] This is no publicans' question at all, but entirely a question of the liberty of the subject; and whether a publican is a good man or not, I shall always oppose this sort of legislation, because I believe it is against the freedom and the liberty of the people. To show this is purely a sentimental grievance, I have in my hand here the Return of the arrests for drunkenness on Sunday, a Return I moved for myself.!I am quoting from the Return of the two years from September, 1879, to September, 1881. The population of Cornwall was asserted to be 286,211, and out of that number there had only been 14 cases in the two years arrested on the Sunday for drunkenness, being an average on the year of one in 40,000. That being the case, it is ridiculous to have this twaddling kind of legislation in order to come down upon one man in 40,000. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate the feelings of the working man as much as he appreciates his own on the Sunday. Is it not absurd to stop the working man obtaining a glass of beer because one in 40,000 in the whole of Cornwall happens to be arrested on the Sunday? Altogether in the two years for which I have the Returns, there were 32 arrests for drunkenness in the whole of Cornwall; but of that number there were only 14 bonâ fide residents. In Falmouth, with a population of 4,873, only four bonâ fide residents were arrested on the Sunday for drunkenness; at Helston, Launceston, Penryn, and Penzance, none were arrested; and in the City of Truro, with a population of 11,049, only four bonâ fide residents were arrested on the Sunday. It is absurd to ask us to waste our time on a Saturday in order to pass these mischievous Bills. I do not wish to say one word against those gentlemen, and those people who are trying to correct the progress of drunkenness. I think many of them are fanatics, and that they are going a great deal too far; but I am not at all sure that this liquor which is now sold in the Coffee Palaces will not do the working classes far more harm than the glass of beer sold in the public-house. The stuff that is sold in these Coffee Palaces is really dreadful. There is sold as non-alcoholic beverages stuff that is called champagne brandy, and some stuff called horehound beer; and I maintain that those people who drink that will feel the effects of that horrid stuff now being sold in all your non-alcoholic establishments much more than if they went into a public-house and had a glass of beer. If there is really anything in this question you should take up the Liquor Question as a whole; if there is really a strong feeling outside upon this question, then I say it is certainly a matter for the Government of the day to attack, and do not by this sentimental legislation—legislation which will not meet the requirements of the case—attempt by driblets to interfere, as you are doing, with the freedom of the subject. If there were any riots in Cornwall on the Sunday through drink, if there were any bad habits amongst the working classes from drinking on the Sunday, I think there might be something to be said for the Bill; but we have no proof—no statistics—that drinking on Sunday has done any harm whatever. Were it the contrary, I think there would be a great deal to be considered; but I do hope we have not come yet to such a pass that we are to pass legislation on a Saturday simply because a majority will try, and are trying, to override the opinions of the minority.

MR. CALLAN

I am sorry that the Home Secretary should—by delivering himself of one of his impassioned phillipics, in a style for which he was remarkable at the Bar, a put-on kind of indignation—have the advantage, at this time of the evening, of keeping you here, Sir, through the dulness of a Saturday Sunday closing meeting. I only wish to refer to one observation of the Home Secretary. When he said, with that expansive manner of his—"We are bound to consider the opinions of the people"—meaning the opinions of the people of Cornwall—it is a pity that he had not held the same opinion this year when he introduced a coercive measure affecting the interests of the people of Ireland. And what did the present Home Secretary state in March, 1873, when a Bill vitally affecting Ireland was introduced? What were the principles by which he was actuated then? He said— For himself, he had never adopted the idea of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. He had always regarded Ireland as a part of Her Majesty's Dominions—as an integral fraction of a united Empire—and, if that be so, Ireland, like all other parts of the Dominions of the Queen, must be governed, not according to Irish, but according to Imperial ideas."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 1618.] But here to-day he jumps Jim Crow with all the agility and grace of an acrobat, and says "we must be governed by the people of Cornwall." Now, Sir, this being Saturday, and not wishing to waste any sweetness on the desert air, and seeing that there are not more than half a quorum present, I have to direct your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. ROUND

I only wish to say that I am very anxious this Bill should pass the second reading; and I believe that many Members on these Benches will vote for the Bill. I know many Members who are not here who are in favour of the Bill; and I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will be satisfied with the protest he has made, and will not put the House to the trouble of a division. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. C. C. Ross), although not present, I know, is very anxious for this Bill to pass. In my own constituency the movement has been taken up by the clergy, Nonconformist ministers, and in many rural parishes by the inhabitants generally, who are desirous that a similar measure for England should become law.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

I think, Sir, that the procedure of the Government in the matter of this Bill is unjustifiable; and, as an old Member of Parliament, I never remember a printed Bill being taken with the sanction of the Government at a Saturday Sitting. ["Oh, oh!"] This proceeding was settled at an early hour this morning between the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian) and the Government; but without Notice being given. The Home Secretary decided to take this Bill—

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The right hon. and learned Member is not correct in his statement. The House itself decided to take the Bill to-day.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

Yes; but what did the Government do in the matter? Were there not some negotiations, some political considerations, to be disposed of in deciding that the Bill should be brought on or not? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his speech just now, goes and makes an attack on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but my hon. and learned Friend is at least an honest politician. [Laughter.,] Hon. Members opposite may laugh; but I believe that if the House were asked to vote by ballot as to who was the most honest politician, my hon. and learned Friend or the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my hon. and learned Friend would gain the ballot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman not only attacked my hon. and learned Friend, but he went still further, and assailed the Conservative Party. Such tactics will tell both ways, and if they will get votes in some quarters, it is a very reckless way of getting them. My own experience of elections is by no means small; and I know it is easy, in a hocus-pocus sort of way, to get the votes of the temperance section of the community—the Blue Ribbon Army, the Good Templars, or the Salvation Army. But how was it done? Why, hon. Members opposite, in order to secure the votes of the numerous people in the temperance ranks, say on the hustings—"I will vote for the second reading of the Permissive Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle" (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); but we all know that if that Bill is not altered in Committee to such an extent that its own parent is unable to recognize it at all, very few hon. Members would allow it to take its third reading. What was the attitude of the Government on this subject? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, not long ago, came down to Cumberland to make a big speech—in fact, he was "starring the Provinces" in the interest of the hon. Member for Carlisle; but it is absurd to suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in accordance with the hon. Baronet. The fact is, there is not much agreement between the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle and the Home Secretary upon general politics; but the whole object of their efforts is to turn out a Conservative. ["Question!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is wandering from the subject before the House.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

I bow to your decision, Sir; but I was endeavouring to answer an argument used by the Home Secretary. This Sunday Closing Question is part of a great effort to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on all occasions, and this Bill is the thin end of the wedge to prepare the way for something else. I altogether dissent from legislation such as this; and I object to this House passing measures to please a particular section of the community at the expense of other classes, and if they are to be heard on this one matter why should they not claim to be heard on other questions? The Bill is supported by a moat dangerous doctrine. In my opinion, so important a question as this ought only to be decided in a full House, and not at the tail end of the Session, on a Saturday and on the 12th of August. If this Bill is read a second time—as I suppose it will be—I protest against it, for it will not be the opinion of the House of Commons, but of a clique who have been got together to-day for a particular purpose.

MR. DALY

I must, Mr. Speaker, enter my protest against this kind of piecemeal legislation. It has been said, and it remains uncontradicted, that the doctrine of Sunday closing could not prevail throughout the country; and I am one of those who think that in a question of this kind the main principle ought to be first settled and recognized by the country at large before it is acted upon. I do not see for instance why because the minority in London is large that it ought to be considered any more than the minority in Cornwall, where it is small numerically. We are now, Sir, arriving at a period when you will close the public-houses in various parts of the country for the entire Sunday; but let me call the attention of hon. Members opposite to what will happen in that event. The people will be deprived of the opportunity of obtaining reasonable refreshment on Sunday, and it will press with great hardship on those who are engaged from early morning until late at night six days in the week, and whose only healthy recreation is to walk in the country on the Sunday. With regard to the signatures to the Petition mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian), we all know how signatures to Petitions are obtained, and how they are doubled, trebled, and quadrupled. I do not believe in the goody-goody people who subscribe their names to a Petition of this kind. I consider that Petitions affecting questions of personal liberty should be signed by those persons whose liberties are concerned, and the signatures of gentlemen who never have entered a public-house in their lives ought to have no value in a matter of this sort. I suppose the Bill will be read a second time; but I call the atten- tion of the House to this fact—that by so doing you are recognizing, in a very broad and clear way, a principle which you deny in other cases. If you accept the majority principle to overrule the minority in this personal matter, why does this House deny the same principle to my countrymen on the question of Home Rule, when they can send to Parliament Petitions signed by more than 90 per cent of the whole population of Ireland in its favour? A question of individual liberty, I maintain, ought to be based upon a broad and sound platform; and it is not fair of the Government to give their consent to what is a species of Local Option, a principle which has never been accepted by the Government as one of their measures. I know that the Government has been afraid to meddle with the question of Local Option as a general measure; and I ask whether it is fair or dignified to support a partial measure which deals with the subject by a side wind, and which is introduced on a day when very few Members are present in the House? I believe the victory about to be secured by hon. Gentlemen opposite will be a fruitless one, because it will be unfairly won. It may be said that I, as an Irish Member, have no right to interfere in this matter. I should not do so if it were not a question involving a sacrifice of principle. I sincerely desire that personal liberty shall be respected in all cases where it does not interfere with the liberty of anyone else. Interference with personal liberty is a very wrong principle, and the Sabbatarians are driving this question to extremes. ["Divide, divide! "] Interruptions of that sort will not put me down, but will induce me to prolong my observations. With regard to this question, I say it is a preventive measure which very nearly approaches tyranny. The closing of public-houses on Sundays in the instances where it has been effected has inflicted an injury and hardship on people who were in the habit of using them reasonably. The Government support this Bill, while, at the same time, they abstain from adopting the general principle on which it is based, and they have always hesitated and are afraid to go for Local Option. They are, by a side wind, touching the fringe of a large question, which they are afraid to deal with. I, as an Irish Member, enter my protest against this tyrannical measure, aimed against those who used the public-houses in a reasonable manner on the Sunday—a measure promoted by fanatics and busybodies, who have taken an unfair opportunity to press it forward with the support of the Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 8: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 332.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.