§ [Progress 5th May.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee).
§ Clause 1 (Hours of closing on Sunday).
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSON (South Shields)I think that, at this hour of the morning (1.10), I shall study the 1107 convenience of the Committee if I state, in the very briefest manner possible, the nature of the Amendment I desire to move, which concerns entirely the area of the operation of the Bill in the matter of Sunday closing. I shall not utter a single word of what may be considered second reading matter, but confine myself to the simple question of the area over which Sunday closing is intended to operate. My hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Pease), who has charge of the Bill, said that, as far as the question of area was concerned, he would be willing, when the Bill got into Committee, to amend it in the direction I propose, provided he was sure that was the wish of the House and of the people of the country. I desire to give him, to-night, an opportunity of ascertaining what is the sense of the House, and, so far as it is reflected by the votes of hon. Members, what is the opinion of the Constituencies as to the extent to which this Bill should be carried. This Bill, as far as regards area, may be said to be divided into three parts—namely, the Metropolis and the Metropolitan Suburbs, towns and populous places, and the rest of the country, which I may call rural parishes. As it now stands, the Bill proposes total Sunday closing—such as exists in Wales—in such part of England as is represented by the rural parishes. With regard to the Metropolis, I have no Amendment to propose to the Bill of my hon. Friend. What I desire to do by the Amendment of which I have given Notice is to secure that there shall be entire Sunday closing throughout the whole of England, except the Metropolis and the Metropolitan Suburbs. It is with that view that I propose to insert, after "retail," in line 6—
Elsewhere than in the Metropolitan District or in the Metropolitan Police District.If the Committee accepts my Amendment, it will sanction the principle that in some part of England, at least, there shall be a day of total rest for those engaged in the liquor traffic, and public opinion will never be content with less. I know it is said that in the Southern counties public opinion is not ripe for total Sunday closing, neither is it so far advanced as in the North. Well, we shall ascertain that by the votes of the Representatives of those counties. From a canvass taken, however, it would appear 1108 that of the householders in these counties, as many as seven to one are in favour of Sunday closing. The householders who thus express their opinion mean total closing, and not partial closing. I trust the Committee will see its way to adopt my Amendment, which I will now move.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 6, after the word "retail," to insert "elsewhere than in the Metropolitan District or in the Metropolitan Police District."—(Mr. J. C. Stevenson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)Hon. Members who were present when the second reading of this Bill was agreed to by the House will recollect very well that I undertook to amend the scope a of the Bill rather than to contract it. The simple issue now before the Committee is this—My hon. Friend desires to promote entire Sunday closing in the whole of the country, except the Metropolis and the Metropolitan Suburbs. My Bill, on the contrary, has two hours for the sale of dinner beer and two hours for the sale of supper beer, and that principle is, I understand, generally accepted by the House—I understand so, because in the last Parliament the unanimous vote of the House was given in that direction. I am afraid I must oppose the Amendment of my hon. Friend, whatever may be my own views on the general question of Sunday closing.
§ MR. T. FRY (Darlington)Mr. Courtney, I think it is a proof of the great interest which is taken in this measure by the people of the North of England, that three of the Representatives of the county of Durham are willing to speak upon the proposal to apply Sunday closing to the whole of the country. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) goes to a division, a great many Members who supported us in reference to entire Sunday closing in the county of Durham will support him in reference to entire Sunday closing for the whole of England. I may say, in reference to the agitation that has been carried on in the county of Durham for the last three years, and which would have culminated in the success of the Durham Closing Bill but for the action of the House of Lords, 1109 that the people are practically unanimous in the desire that the public-houses in their midst should be closed on the Sunday. I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields if he goes to a division.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Lancashire, N.E., Darwen)I should like to point out that, on the second reading, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Joseph Pease) in charge of the Bill distinctly led us to suppose that he would restrict, as he says, the scope of the Bill—that he would not have total Sunday closing in any part of England. On that understanding a large number of Members voted for the second reading. It would hardly be fair, therefore, that the Amendment before the Committee should be accepted, because it would really run in the teeth of the engagement entered into by the hon. Baronet, and upon the faith of which the second reading was agreed to.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 100: Majority 15.—(Div. List, No. 122.)
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSONI beg to move to leave out "except," in line 7, and insert "and," an Amendment which is consequential upon that just adopted by the Committee.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 7, leave out "except," and insert "and."—(Mr. J. C. Stevenson.)
§ Question, "That the word 'except' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That the word 'and' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEI beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSONPerhaps the hon. Baronet will allow us to make another consequential Amendment. It is to leave out——
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)I believe the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill moved to report Progress. On that Motion it is not competent for the hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Stevenson) to go on with his Amendment.
§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY) (Cornwall, Bodmin)I understood the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) to be willing that the consequential Amendment should be made.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSONI trust the hon. Baronet will allow us to pass another consequential Amendment.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)I think the Committee will gladly allow the hon. Member (Mr. Stevenson) to pass the consequential Amendment; but there was an understanding between the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease) and those who sit on this side of the House, that after the question raised by the hon. Member for South Shields had been disposed of, the hon. Baronet would be agreeable to make a Motion to report Progress. It is for the Committee to consider whether, in view of the extremely late Sitting which took place last night—the House sat until a quarter to 4, and although many hon. Members were not present at that hour, the officials were, and I believe felt the strain very considerably—it is for the Committee to consider whether they will have another late Sitting to-night, as would be the case if we were to go on with the Bill. I should not myself have proposed the Motion to report Progress, unless the hon. Baronet had been agreeable to it; but I do think that, under the circumstances, we shall be acting wisely if we allow the further consideration of the Bill to stand over until another Sitting.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT) (Derby)There is a good deal in what the noble Lord has said; but what I understand is proposed is, that we should dispose of the Amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson), and that as we have taken a division on what is called the principle, we should take the Amendments which are merely consequential and then report Progress. I understand my hon. Friend desires to move a consequential Amendment, and not to go into the Bill further.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEThe noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has correctly stated the pledge I gave to several hon. Members opposite, which was that at this late hour, as soon as the principle of my hon. Friend's Amendment was decided, I would move to report Progress. I am, of course, entirely 1111 in the hands of the Committee. If it is the wish of the Committee that we should pass the consequential Amendment and then report Progress, I will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Baronet.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEI cannot move it, and that is why I moved to report Progress.
§ MR. J. C. STEVENSONI beg to move the omission of the words "or in a town or populous place." The Amendment is merely consequential.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "or in a town or populous place."—(Mr. J. C. Stevenson.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ SIR JOSEPH PEASEI now move that you do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
§ MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)I must oppose the Motion. We are asked here to go through the Bill, and I see no adequate reason why we should not proceed.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERAt a quarter to 4 to-morrow I was in the House—[Laughter]—and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch was not. I appeal to hon. Members who were comfortably in bed this morning, while I and others were in attendance at the House, if they have no consideration for us, to have consideration for you, Mr. Courtney, and the Speaker, and the officers of the House. Having sat up until a quarter to 4 this morning, it is rather hard they should be kept up until a late hour at this Sitting.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Cambourne)I am sure no one will prevent the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler) going to bed, if he wishes to do so. I was here until a quarter to 4 this morning, and I am prepared to stay up as long again, if by so doing we can get through this Bill.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)I have consideration for the hon. Baronet; but 1112 I have more consideration for the women and children in every part of the country. I would rather consider their interests than those of the hon. Baronet. I was not here until a quarter to 4 this morning. I was not here until a quarter to 4 to-morrow, or yesterday; but what I have to say is this—this is Friday; to-morrow is Saturday. I reckon the hours like a man of the world. This is Friday—["Question!"] I am speaking to the Question. We have plenty of time before us. We have all to-morrow for leisure; and if matters go as the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) wishes, we shall have very considerable time for leisure, so far as the Business of the House is concerned. The question which has just been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields is a very serious one. Whatever hon. Gentleman representing other parts of the country may think, we, in the county of Durham, are extremely anxious about this Bill, By the action of another House we have been deprived of the very advantages which the hon. Member for South Shields seeks to secure by this Bill, and you need not complain if now we renew our efforts, with, we hope, a better fate. Even at 25 minutes to 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, if Saturday you will call it, I propose that we should proceed with this important Bill, in the interest of the large numbers of the population who very much desire it to pass.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 110: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 123.)
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.