[BILL 51.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 22 May 1883)

§ MR. WARTON

, in opposing the Motion, said, he had to complain that it came upon the House by surprise, inasmuch as hon. Members knew not, as yet, how the Government were going to vote on the question; whether they were, as a whole, going to support, or whether one-half of them were going to support, and the other half to vote against it, just to show to the country that there was no strength or backbone whatever in the present Administration. In fact, no one could tell on what principle they acted. They knew not from what Her Majesty's Ministers would abstain, in order to secure the votes of a fanatical section of the House of Commons. They were, as a weak Government, ready to give way to everything that was forced upon them. Although that was the case with the Government, he hoped the House would stand firm, and not let the whole administration of the country get into the hands of the fanatical Party. The Bill itself was a short one, but its object was very large. It meant this—that every place in England for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors should be shut up for the whole ' day upon Sunday, except for the accom- 730 modation of the bonâ fide traveller. No proposal could be more monstrous than that. It amounted to this—that the whole population of the country should be prevented from tasting a glass of beer upon Sunday, because a set of men, who know neither their wants nor their habits, were of opinion it was not good for them. Surely that was a question which each man ought to have the right of deciding for himself, without being dictated to by anyone else. However, as he said before, it was unnecessary to go into the merits of the Bill at any length until they saw what course Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt. He firmly believed that, if they gave a proposal so absurd and so monstrous the least countenance or support, their conduct would be received with an indignant spirit by the country, and the consequences might be of a serious character. They had all seen how the Government, on a recent occasion, gave way to mob law. He had no wish to see them subjected a second time to the same degradation; and, therefore, he hoped they would recollect what a mob did some years ago, in Hyde Park, in consequence of the passing of what was called Lord Robert Grosvenor's Act. For his own part, he could not see what right any man, or any set of men, had to prevent their fellow-citizens from taking their refreshments whenever they required them. Take the opposite side, and suppose the advocates of the licensed victuallers' trade brought in a Bill, making it compulsory on every teetotaller to drink a quart of whisky each day, what an outcry would be made about it. It would not be one whit more monstrous or absurd than this proposal. Still, they deserved it, and he, for one, would have no commiseration for them. What he complained of was, that this was class legislation of the bitterest and most cruel kind. Those who proposed it, however, knew neither the rights nor the necessities of hard-working men. There were, in London, thousands of men in the position of clerks, living in lodgings, who had no cellars to which to resort, like the advocates of this measure, for a supply of generous wine, which they drank to keep their own spirits up, while they denied those hardworking men the right of living like ordinary Christians. It should be recollected that these men rented only one or 731 two rooms, where it was impossible they could have a supply of beverage in store. If, then, one of these men wanted a glass of beer on Sunday, they drove him to get it on Saturday evening and keep it overnight, and drink it stale upon Sunday.