Commons Sitting of 26 March 1890

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law respecting the exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction in Her Majesty's Dominions and else-
1874
where out of the United Kingdom." [Colonial Courts of Admiralty Bill [Lords.]
That they do not insist on their Amendments to County Councils Association Expenses Bill, to which this House has disagreed; and agree to the Amendments made by this House to the Amendments made by the Lords, and to the Consequential Amendments made by this House to the said Bill.

NEW WRITS.
For Carnarvon, v. Edmund Sweten-ham, esquire, deceased; for Windsor, v. Robert Richardson-Gardner, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
QUESTION.

  THE LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. SEXTON: My hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) has placed upon the Paper a question to the Chief Secretary to ask—
  "Whether, in view of the fact that the Olphert Estate forms a portion of one of the congested districts to be dealt with by the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill introduced on the 24th instant, he proposes to give the forces of the Crown for the carrying out of the evictions there,"
  As the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, I will raise the question on the Adjournment of the House to-day.

  POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT (AUSTRALIAN MAILS).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of the Contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, dated the 19th day of January, 1888, and the Orient Steam Navigation Company, dated the 23rd day of January, 1888, for the conveyance of the Australian Mails, together with a copy of the Treasury Minute relating thereto."— (Mr. Jackson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 112.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 9.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    DR. CLARK: The objects of the Bill which I now ask the House to read a second time are twofold. The first is to secure a Schedule of the Returning Officers' charges, similar to that which is provided by law for England and Ireland. Unfortunately there is no Schedule at all for Scotland. Owing to the usual indifference of the House when Scotch measures are concerned the Bills which have been introduced upon this subject have not been passed, and the result is that the law of Scotland differs entirely from that which exists for England and Ireland. My own experience has been a somewhat singular one, and it shows, I think, the necessity for some such measure. Since the passing of the Corrupt Practices Act it has become rather difficult for a man to pass through an election without being placed in the position of being turned out of the House for some act which he did not himself commit. In 1885 I myself might have been turned out in consequence of the corrupt acts of the Returning Officer. He presented mo with a bill which, if I had paid it, might have led to my being expelled from this House. Of course I refused to recognise the unfair, unjust, and corrupt charges contained in the Bill. I had given £200 to the Sheriff, and he wanted me to accept back a sum of £50, which he did not require. If I had accepted it I should have condoned the illegal act of the Returning Officer, so, during the existence of that Parliament, I allowed the money to remain in his hands. When a dissolution came I took the money. The right hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) brought in a Bill in 1886 to remedy the grievance, and in the present measure I have adopted every clause contained in that Bill except Clause 5. In the Schedule which I submit I have adopted the whole of the right hon.
    1876
    Gentleman's figures, which are very similar to those of the English Schedules. Unfortunately that Parliament was only a short one, and the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was one of the last Bills brought in. It went before the other House, but there was not time to consider it; but as they thought we wanted something for Scotland they gave us the right of appeal. As the law now stands the Statutes governing this matter are, first the Reform Act of 1832, which states that fair and reasonable charges shall be defrayed by the candidate; and also one of the clauses of the Ballot Act. We have now the right of appeal, and at the election of 1886 the Bill presented to me by the Sheriff did not contain so many illegal charges as the previous one, but still there were some, and, taking advantage of the Act of 1886, I went to the Court of Session, before which Court all the illegal charges made by the Sheriff were taxed away, and the taxing master of the Court—a gentleman well known to the Lord Advocate, a good old Conservative, who was not likely to do anything in an unreasonable way— reduced the account from £241 to £157, or by nearly 40 per cent. But, unfortunately, although the Bill was reduced I had to pay all the costs of the action. In this case it so happens that the Sheriff is paid fairly well for the work he does, but under the special Act he charged £10 10s. for himself for attending on two occasions to do the work. I look upon it as most unfair that a candidate who has suffered from the work being badly and illegally done should also be made to suffer in being required to pay the costs. I remember that in the case of one of the polling clerks he travelled for a distance of eight miles, and his "fair and reasonable" charge for going down was only 15 guineas! Other people would have considered three guineas quite enough. I trust that the present Government will do what the last Government intended to do, and will give Scotland protection, by laying down what is already considered reasonable and fair in England and Ireland. So much for the principal portion of the Bill. The 5th clause is quite a different clause altogether. It provides that instead of placing the expenditure upon the candidates it shall be placed upon the rates, both in burghs and in munici-

    1877
    palities. In drafting the Bill I did not see how it was necessary or desirable to continue the present tax upon candidates. In the contests which take place in connection with the School Boards, Parochial Boards, Town Councils, and County Councils, all the costs are paid out of the rates, but in Parliamentary elections the candidate himself is compelled to pay them. If we were logical we should adopt the same principle in all cases; and so far as the cost is concerned, that of a County Council election is twice as much as that for a Parliamentary election. If the cost of electing a Member of Parliament were thrown upon the rates it would be a mere bagatelle, and would amount to very little more per head than the price of an ounce of tobacco. In the second place, it is the cost which prevents many working men candidates from finding their way into the House of Commons. The old feeling with regard to the working classes is now entirely changed. We have even the Conservative working man, and he is not regarded as at all a bad fellow. It is quite time that all these old bogies should be got rid of. The Labour Member has been found to be a very useful Member, and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are just as pleased to see him as we are. The cost of an election has also the effect of deterring persons of the lower middle class from becoming candidates. In Scotland there is, unfortunately, no farmer returned. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) is the nearest approach to one, and, so far as I am personally concerned, I feel that I ought not to represent Caithness, but that it ought to be represented by a farmer or a crofter. If this Bill passes, instead of the farmers and crofters having to return men to fight their battles, you will have the men themselves. So far as the Scotch Members are concerned, we are all at one in regard to this Bill, and I want to know from the other side of the House why a moderate measure of this kind should not be passed, and why a tax should be continued which has the effect of preventing a very useful body of persons from finding their way into this House?
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Dr. Clark.)
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I am afraid that the ancient superstition which caused this House to be regarded as a close and very convenient club has now been dispelled. I gratefully acknowledge what has been effected by the Corrupt Practices Act which the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James) steered through this House with such great ability. Candidates have been saved an enormous expenditure under that Act, but like other great measures, such as the Reform Act of 1832, it cannot be regarded as final. Experience shows that it did not go far enough. At present, I may spend £1,500 or £1,700 in contesting a constituency, and there are other hon. Members who may be compelled to spend a great deal more than that. I think the only remedy is to pass this Bill, and to place the necessary expenses of the Returning Officer upon the rates, or upon the Consolidated Fund. I do not care which, so long as the candidates are relieved of the burden of the expenditure. We give our time to the country, a great deal of labour, and often sacrifice our health, and why, practically, we should have our pockets picked as well, for election expenses, passes my comprehension. In the School Board and County Council elections the expenses are borne by the localities. I may be asked whether the constituencies themselves are in favour of the proposed change. Judging from my own locality, I believe they are. The charge upon the rates would be extremely small, and unless some Act of this kind is passed, we shall continue to be deprived of the services of labour candidates, and persons of local knowledge, which farmers and others possess. I have often been asked the qnestion "Why don't you have more local men coming forward in Scotland?" The reason is that few men can afford the expense of coming forward, and the result is that a great many constituencies are handed over to the noble army of "carpet baggers," who go down and sweep everything before them. I have, on more than one occasion, brought the question before public meetings, and I always found a strong feeling in favour of putting the expenses of Parliamentary elections upon the rates or upon the Consolidated Fund. It is said that if this Bill passes there will be a contest

    1879
    every time. Well, I do not see that that would be a disadvantage. On the contrary, it is generally of immense advantage to oneself, and to the constituency as well. It educates oneself very much; and it educates the constituency still more. It also encourages a friendly feeling among your own supporters, and is of great service, seeing that it is not bound to come more than once in seven years. If the expense of a contest were got rid of I would encourage a contested election every time. At present, the practice is to carry on a hopelsss contest against you in order to squeeze you pecuniarily as much as possible, and exhaust your resources so as to prevent yon from becoming a candidate again. Personally, I am engaged in fighting: in succession all the Tory lairds of Aberdeenshire, but if the expense were put upon the rates, it would be indifferent to me whether I was opposed or not. But I think it exceedingly probable that the opposition would fade away altogether. There are many of us who think that the present duration of Parliament is too long; that it is out of touch with the country, and that the country desires a change. But if we are to have a new Parliament every two or three years, I do not think it would be right to subject candidates to a constant expenditure of this character. It is for this reason that I have always been opposed to the shortening of the duration of Parliament, because I believe it would work badly in exposing candidates to a perpetual drainage, in the shape of expenditure. I regard the present proposal as a very reasonable one, and I have no doubt that it will receive considerable support from English and Irish Members. We in Scotland are desirous of going forward as the pioneers of reforms, and we are suggesting reforms that will be of immense advantage both to England and Ireland. I trust that the Government will accept the Bill. If they do not it is not impossible that we may secure a victory, unless the Government have a considerable number of Members waiting in ambush outside. I warn them, that when they leave office and we on this side of the House come into power, this is one of the very first reforms we shall require. I hope the day is not far distant when that may be the case. I beg to second the Motion.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, very justly observed that it has two separate and distinct objects. On the part of the Government I wish to express our complete sympathy with that branch of the measure which the hon. Member first developed, namely, that a Schedule should be provided of the Returning Officers' charges. That would really supply a deficiency which exists in regard to Parliamentary elections in Scotland, and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. B. Balfour) nearly rectified in 1886. The House will recollect that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was introduced on the eve of a General Election, and that there was practical unanimity in regard to making provision for a Schedule of charges, Indeed, the subject is one on which I do not think there can be much difference of opinion, although I am not prepared to say that it may not be necessary to modify some of the details of the measure now before us. Unfortunately, as I think, the hon. Member has mixed up the subject with a proposition of a much more controversial character. We should readily accept the Second Reading of the Bill of the hon. Member if it were not that be has coupled with the harmless proposal for providing a scale of charges—a proposal which, I believe, would secure general assent—another proposal to throw the expenses upon the rates. Now, I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman is rather throwing away his opportunity of effecting a change in the law on a subject in which he takes deep interest, namely, the establishment of a Schedule of charges, by including a larger question with it. If the Bill were confined to the provisions contained in Clauses 5 and 6 I think the hon Member would have the easy assent of the House, but it is most undesirable to connect with the Bill a subject which is notoriously a matter of very great and keen debate. The question whether the expenses shall be borne by the rates is not one which is peculiar to Scotland at all, but is a question which, I venture to think, will be best considered by the House when it is presented fairly and squarely in a general Bill affecting the whole country.

    1881
    The hon. Member for Caithness tells us that the ratepayers are already familiarised with the matter in connection with the mode in which the expenses of School Board and County Council elections have been dealt with.
    DR. CLARK: I meant that all the machinery that is necessary is now in the possession of the County Councils, such as ballot boxes, &c, and that the cost would only be one-third of what it would have been before the County Councils were created.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: We have certainly got the ballot boxes, but I am hardly persuaded that the County Councils have all the necessary materials for dealing with Parliamentary elections, so as to prevent the necessity for the cost which now arises. The hon. Member on the one hand makes a proposal which is to effect economy in the conduct of Parliamentary elections, and on the other hand he proposes to saddle upon the ratepayers the burden of an expenditure which, unfortunately, it has been necessary to inflict upon them in connection with the establishment of County Councils. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson) has given his reasons why these changes should be brought about. So far as his charge against the Scotch Members is concerned, that they are most of them "carpet baggers," it is a dispute which I must leave him to settle with his own friends. Personally, I am not aware that, owing to the expenses to which candidates have been subjected, Parliament has been deprived of the services of representatives who are natives of Scotland, and I am not prepared to say how far the Scottish constituencies would agree to the proposal that native candidates are to be forced upon them on the condition that there must be an increase in the burden of the local rates. I do not propose to discuss the details of the Bill, and I hope I have not entered into the merits of the question in any controversial spirit. I freely admit that it is one for consideration, and my only reason for rising was to point out this in favour of the change which the hon. Gentleman first advocated, that he is unnecessarily encumbering the reform he desires to bring about by tacking on to it a highly controversial subject. I venture to think that these clauses should be eliminated from the Bill with
    1882
    a view to the speedy passage of those parts of the measure as to which there is general agreement. Failing that elimination, I am constrained to say it is impossible for the Government to assent to the Bill, because the most salient and controversial part of it is the 5th clause, and we could hardly read the measure a second time and afterwards propose to exclude that clause without the assent of those who have charge of the Bill. I think that the subject, large as it is, is not well raised on this occasion, and when we come to enter into the merits of the question I, for one, must offer my opposition to a proposal that would impose an unnecessary burden on the rates of the counties in Scotland.
    SIR G.TREVELYAN: I am glad to find that on the important question of the schedule the Government take a decidedly favourable view of this measure, and I take it that that admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman is at least something gained. But when, having said so much, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks my hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill, I think he goes a little too far. It is not so easy for a private Member to secure first place on the Order Paper, on a Wednesday for an important Bill, that such an opportunity should be thrown away. My hon. Friend, though a new Parliamentary hand, is too knowing a one not to see that if the Government want, in the interest of the Conservative Party, to enact that there should be a Schedule of expenses, they can find time for that with the greatest ease, because no Scotch Member would raise his voice against it.
    MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I did not suggest that the hon. gentleman should withdraw the Bill. What I suggested was that an undertaking should be given to the House that the Controversial Clauses, 5 and 6, should be eliminated from the Bill, and that tha t would relieve the Government from the necessity of opposing the Bill.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman stated the case quite clearly at first, and has restated it very clearly now; but we say that the clauses referred to are of the greatest importance, and we are extremely anxious to get the judgment of the House—and especially of the Scotch

    1883
    Members—upon them. This is one of those cases in which the arguments for the Bill are very simple and elementary, while all that can be said against it amounts to nothing more than arguments of an ingenious, but, as I consider them, of a very trivial character. I feel bound to say that if we can show that our arguments are plain, and simple, and clear, we need care very little what the arguments on the other side are. The main argument for the Bill is that under the present system the people cannot elect the man of their choice because a very severe fine is inflicted on him. How severe that fine is I am prepared to show; but I shall not dwell very long on this part of the subject, on account of the evident agreement on both sides of the House that the expense of Scotch elections are uncertain, and in many eases too large. Even under the most reformed system it would be quite impossible to have the expenses of a contested borough much under £200—that is to say, £100 for each candidate; or, of a contested county much under £300, or £150 for each candidate. I, therefore, ask the House to consider this as a very serious matter. It is when you come to the Crofter counties that you come to those in which most enormous expenses are inflicted. In the case of Inverness, in the year 1885, the legal expenses amounted to £1,191, while in Ross and Cromartie they amounted to £1,145, and, although reduced in the elections of 1886, the expenses in these counties were still very heavy. Well, Sir, I say that to tell the Crofters of Scotland that they are not to have as representatives the men who sympathise with them and their interests and grievances, unless they pay three times as much as is paid by those who contest the richer counties of Lothian and Fife-shire, is, I think, nothing short of a sin and a shame. You must remember it is only when those expenses are handed over to the County Council that you have a real guarantee that they shall be kept as low as possible. The County Council will minutely and ruthlessly examine into the expenditure, but at the present moment everyone who knows Scotland knows how much in the more remote parts of the country the candidate is at the mercy of the Returning Officer— absolutely at the mercy of the Returning
    1884
    Officer, and that, unless he has the unusual pluck of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, he must be the very last man to veuture to tax the Returning Officer's bill. That is one of the main arguments for this Bill, namely, that the people may be able to elect the man of their choice. But still there is another and a deeper argument which many of us regard as one of much importance. We say that you ought to have a high ideal to place before the constituents at an election, and that so long as the candidate is called upon to pay all the expenses of his own election you must have a low ideal, because you make it appear that you are conferring a favour upon him by electing him, whereas, instead of that being the case, a good Member in reality confers a favour by serving the constituency he represents. By passing this Bill we shall show that the position of the Member is one of public duty, and not of private pleasure. I was sorry to hear the Lord Advocate raise the bugbear of expenditure, because I would ask the House what, after all, does the expenditure amount to if put upon the rates? For the whole of Scotland in the year 1886 it was £17,000. That, no doubt, is a large sum when it has to be paid by a limited number of private persons, but if you take the rental of Scotland I think you will find that it is less than one farthing in the £1 in the whole area. I put it to hon. Members, what should we think of the electors of Scotland if they so lightly value their electoral privileges that they will not pay the price of a pipe of tobacco, or very little more than that of a pinch of good snuff, in order to get the man they want. It is said that this is only a part of the election expenses. That is an argument which was used with great effect informer days, but since the Corrupt Practices Act was passed those legal expenses have become so large a part of the expenditure at elections as to be a very important consideration. I ask the House to note that these expenses bear a much larger ratio to what I may call, without offence, the people's candidate, on whichever side of the House they may happen to sit than they do in the case of ordinary Members. I can here quote a very curious instance. In the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland we have a working man's candidate,

    1885
    whose expenses amounted to £465 in all. But of that sum as much as £259 were legal expenses. If you look at the expenditure of other working men's candidates, you will find that the same thing holds good. In a certain division a, working man stood against a colonel of considerable position; the working man spent £383, and the colonel £896; the legal expenses were in each case £200. How very much larger in that case was the proportion of legal expenses to the other expenditure of the working men's candidate. Again, in the Eastern Division of Finsbury, the working men's candidate spent £254, of which £100 were legal expenses. It is evident that this Bill, if passed, would be essentially a measure for the relief of those persons who, as candidates for seats in Parliament, want relief the most. You must recollect the great advantage attaching to private wealth. This is almost the only country in which the candidates have to pay the whole of the expenditure, or in which the Member has to give the whole of his time without any remuneration. When we ask the House to relieve candidates of the many burdens imposed upon them, it may not amount to much, but it is at any rate a tangible relief, and I believe it to be in every sense an act of justice. I now come to the last argument against the Bill, and that is one which seems to frighten hon. Members opposite. They say that men of straw will be set up in large numbers, and that we shall always have contests. I believe there is nothing in that argument, and for this reason: hon. Members who have watched the course of recent elections know perfectly well that if we have to fight successfully a contest in a great community, say of 70,000 or 80,000 persons, and desire to obtain a majority of some 1,000 or 1,200 electors, the only chance is to choose the best man on our side we can possibly select. If a man is deficient in character, reputation, or genuine and solid standing, no matter what his rank may be, he is a bad candidate, whom neither of the two great Parties in the borough will accept, and he has no chance. I say, further, that if a man, be he Liberal or Conservative, represents a great Party and a great cause, he need not be afraid of anybody coming forward from motives of mere selfish notoriety, or personal
    1886
    vanity. This is how we shall eliminate men of straw, and not by laying a fine upon both good candidates and men of straw alike. As to this being a question for the whole country, all I can say is, that Scotland knows her own mind on the matter; she has freedom of discussion, and we want her to have free elections. You must remember that Scotchmen say, I do not know with what amount of truth, that what Scotland thinks to-day England will think to-morrow. Twenty years ago, when England was in better mind, this proposal of my right hon Friend was put into a Bill introduced into this House by the then Conservative Government, and upon two Divisions a majority kept that clause in the Bill. Every argument which Professor Fawcett, then sitting below the Gangway, brought forward at that time for the conviction of the House, that that Bill was called for by reasons of Justice and National expediency, exists at the present moment, and if Scotland thinks that this Bill ought to pass, England ought not to stand in her way in a matter which concerns Scotland alone, except so far as her example may influence England.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: This is a delicate matter, in which it may be said that the interests of the candidates are different from those of their con-stitutents. There are many who say that a rich candidate would rather have expensive elections, in order that the poor man may he kept out, but we poor Scotch Members do not like to pay more than we can possibly help, and to this extent our interests are opposed to those of our constituents in the mere matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, although, as regards other matters, their interests are identical with ours. This is a question in which we are bound to think once, twice, or thrice before accepting this Bill. But I have given it those repeated thoughts, and am willing to take whatever responsibility I may incur in voting for it. We know there is a question often brought before the constituencies, and I regard it as a popular question, that Members should be paid. I am not now going into that question, but I certainly think that Members should not pay their election expenses. A place in this House ought not to be a privilege for which a man has to pay. I would not make an election absolutely without cost to a

    1887
    Member, but I would insist, with my right hon. Friend, that the strictly legal expenses should not be imposed upon the candidate, but thrown on the constituency. I also agree, that when you pat these charges on a constituency they will amount to a very small burden. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has said, so long as a Member is required to pay all the expenses he has no way of diminishing them unless he exhibits that amount of courage which has been alluded to that would enable him to tax the Returning Officer's charges. Doubtless the Returning Officers impose very heavy costs on the candidates, but if you throw those charges on the constituency there will be a self-acting means of economy that will save a great deal of the present cost. At present you have this in the case of elections for Burgh Councillors, and County Councillors and School Boards, but there it rests. All these constituencies are equipped with the proper machinery for the purpose, and it is only necessary that the machinery should be utilised in the Parliamentary elections, in order to secure a considerable saving. Nothing can be more absurd than that a constituency should charge the candidates for the hire of ballot boxes and things of that kind. If you pass this Bill you will get rid of all these charges, without throwing any additional cost on the ratepayers. As to the expenses of Returning Officers and Sheriffs, I am convinced that they might be vary materially cut down in the interests of economy and of the constituencies, while the charge thrown on the constituencies will be but small. The poor candidates will be greatly relieved by its passage, and I trust the House will see its way to allowing the measure to be read a second time.
    MR. LENG: I am, perhaps, unable to speak quite so feelingly on this subject as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, but I may say that, perhaps, no Member has entered this House lately whose election expenses have been less than my own, so that it is not on the ground of personal interest that I desire to say a few words in favour of this Bill. I observe that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate altogether evaded the question of whether the proposal to throw these election expenses on the rates was
    1888
    a prudent and wise proposal. He insisted that it was a large question, affecting the whole country, and therefore ought not to be dealt with in a partial manner, bnt I put it to the House, if the proposal is sound in itself why should it not be debated now? It is one that has been before the House on several previous occasions, and I ask when will the House have more leisure to discuss it than it has on this quiet Wednesday afternoon? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has not met the point that was put by the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark), that already these expenses are thrown on the rates for all other elections, except Parliamentary elections. Many of those elections occur annually, and many triennially, but Parliamentary elections are supposed to be septennial, although, no doubt, they do occur more frequently than once in seven years; but, as has been shown, the cost to the constituencies under this Bill will be exceedingly small, and will scarcely be felt by the ratepayers. Why, then, is the Bill opposed, as it has been by the Government? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be content to leave this question in the hands of the Scottish Members? If he were to so leave it, he knows well how it would be decided. The large majority of the Scottish representatives have already made up their minds on the subject, in conformity with the views of their constituents. Whenever 'I have endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of the voters on this question I have never heard them grudge the throwing of those expenses on the rates. It seems to me that whenever questions of this kind arise, the true feeling on those Benches is always the same. If I rightly interpret the minds of hon. Members opposite, it is felt that these election expenses act as a protection to men of wealth, and in prohibition of the candidature of working men, and individuals of that class. I would just put the matter in this way to the House. We have been defeated already in many of these Scottish questions, but we ought not to be exposed to the action of the English majority, whose resistance to the popular demands of the Scottish people is doing more than anything to promote the claim for Home Rule in Scotland. The Lord Advocate has admitted that one important part of

    1889
    this Bill is deserving of the approval of the House; but we in Scotland think that the clauses to which he objects are equally good, if not better than those he is ready to accept. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to run the risk of rejecting this measure, because we shall continue to press it forward, and we are determined that Scotch legislation shall be in conformity with Scottish opinion, and that we will not be constantly out-voted by English Members. They have out-voted the Scotch Members time after time, and I now call on the English representatives not to allow the Government to put a drag on the superior intelligence of Scotland. I had no intention to speak on this question, but my spirit has been stirred within me, and I intend systematically to insist that on all Scotch questions Scotch opinion shall prevail.
    MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: Many years of my life have been spent in Australia, where all the expenses of the elections are paid out of the general revenue of the country. I am, therefore, in a position to say that that plan works well and gives general satisfaction, and I am quite prepared, when a sufficiently comprehensive Bill is brought in, to support a proposal for paying the whole of the expenses at elections out of the revenues of the country. But I do not feel justified in supporting this sort of piece-meal legislation, and I think it would be an injustice to other parts of the Kingdom. As to the argument that men of straw would come forward if this Bill were passed, I may be allowed to suggest a plan that would prevent anything of the kind. In Australia no one is permitted to come forward as a candidate who does not deposit with the Returning Officer a substantial sum of money, and in case he fails to secure one-fifth of the votes that deposit is forfeited on the ground of frivolous opposition. For the reasons I have just stated I regret that I am obliged to oppose the Bill.
    MR. A. ELLIOT: In the interesting maiden speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee I think he rather lost sight of an important consideration, namely, that on what
    1890
    is only a Local Bill we are asked to fight a point of Imperial importance. That being the case, you are really inviting Members representing parts of the Kingdom outside Scotland to apply their minds to a measure which, while it applies to Scotland alone, involves a principle applicable to England and Ireland also. For my part, I feel that the question is of as much importance to the other portions of the Kingdom as to Scotland, and that if such a Bill is carried for Scotland it ought to be carried for England and Ireland. Therefore it would not be right to exclude Englishmen from voting on this question. I was struck by a remark made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. My feeling about this Bill is that it should have been an Imperial Bill applicable to the three Kingdoms. I think the argument is wholly in favour of the payment of the necessary expenses out of the rates. No argument has been proposed on the other side against it, although I suppose if the debate continues some will be adduced. I look at the question rather from the point of view of the constituents, and surely we are benefitting them if we widen their choice of candidates. At present they are too much restricted to candidates who are favoured in high quarters, whereas I think the candidates should be chosen by the constituents themselves. I think the direction and control in these matters ought to be local, because the representation is really based on local feeling and sentiment. I have always felt that this proposal rests on a different basis altogether from the proposal to pay Members Parliamentary salaries. I should be sorry to see a step taken in that direction, but I do not think it is involved in the present proposal. It is an honour to represent and serve a constituency, and I do not think it should be made a subject of pecuniary interest to obtain seats in Parliament. Such a course would tend to class legislation, and might hold out an inducement to those who have not succeeded in their profession or trade to seek a seat in Parliament, thus depriving the country of the services of those men who can best maintain its interests. I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am sorry that it does not apply to the whole of the Three Kingdoms.
    MR. M. STEWART: Sir, as to the effect which this Bill would have, if carried, on the working classes, I think that the amount involved is really so small that there exists no serious grievance. Taking the whole of Scotland over, and excluding certain counties to which reference has been made, the entire sum in the case of an election would be £150, and I do not think that would so act as to prevent the working classes bringing forward candidates. Of course, if a working man does come forward, his expenses must be paid; but whether it is £500 or £150, it really is a matter of great indifference, if you are determined to have such a representative in Parliament. I look upon it as unwise to bring this Bill forward at this time. We have not taken the opinion of our constituents upon this question. The hon. Member for Dundee said the opinion of the majority of Scotch Members is in conformity with Scotch opinion. But this is a matter which has not been brought before the people of Scotland, and it means, if the Bill ha carried, the payment of Members. Because the majority of Scotch Members happen suddenly to make up their minds in this subject, it is no proof that the whole nation demands the change which they are advocating. We have very distinct proof that the people of Scotland are fairly satisfied with the present mode of returning Members of Parliament, and that Members should pay their own way. It is one of the glories and boasts of this country that you get more hard work out of your Members, more of their time, than does any other Legislature in the whole world. If you pay the election expenses out of the rates you will very soon find that you will have to pay the expenses of the Members, and you will no longer have able men who devote more than their spare time to the service of their country. I do not see how you can deal with Scotland piecemeal in this matter. There are questions peculiar to Scotland which can well be dealt with separately, but here is a measure which applies equally to England, Wales, and Ireland. I venture to say it is a Bill which ought not longer to occupy the time of the House. Then there is the further argument that if you have triennial elections you would
    1892
    multiply the expenses cast upon the ratepayers—expenses of which they know nothing now. And as to the question of working-men Representatives, I maintain that the ordinary Member has opportunities of meeting the working men in various centres of his constituency, and of ascertaining and representing their wishes just as well as others of their own class. I do hope this Bill will not ho read a second time.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Mark Stewart.,)
    Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: Sir, I think this Bill might be fairly described as a Members Relief Bill. It seems to be chiefly directed to looking after number one. The hon. Member for Caithness, in moving the Bill, was ingenious in holding out as a pleasing prospect that if this Bill were passed he would himself be replaced by a Crofter Member to the combined advantage of the House and of the constituency. I shall express no opinion on that point. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire was ingenuous, for he seems to be only too delighted that under it he would be able to enjoy the luxury of a successful contested election, without any expanse whatever to himself. He says a contested election encourages friendly feeling, and I am glad that is his experience. I am afraid, however, that he does not seem to appreciate encouraging that friendly feeling at his own expense. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton talked about eliminating men of straw. I do not quite see how you are to do so under this Bill—quite the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman said we have now free education in Scotland, therefore we ought to have free elections. I would venture to point out that free education does not put an additional burden on the rates.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, it does.
    MR. HOZIER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; it does not.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Free education in Scotland is paid for by a sum of

    1893
    money which in England is devoted to the relief of the rates.
    MR. HOZIER: The sum might be devoted to the relief of the rates, but its alienation throws no new burden upon the ratepayers.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is the same thing.
    MR. HOZIER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is by no means the same thing. This cost of elections would be an additional burden upon the ratepayers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very glad to state that the ratepayers of Scotland made no serious complaints with regard to the rates. That will certainly not be the case if you throw this additional burden upon the ratepayers of having to pay for a number of frivolous contests, oven in order, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire pleasantly puts it, to encourage friendly feeling throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR&c): Sir, I think it is satisfactory that we have at last heard the only arguments which can apparently be advanced against the proposal in the 5th clause, and I must say that they appear of a singular character. The argument of the hon. Member for Kirkcudbright was that the amount of the official expenses to be put upon the rates would be so small as to be hardly worth while mentioning. But if that be so, there would not be objection on the part of the ratepayers to the rate levied for election expenses.
    MR. M. STEWART: I said it would not be worth mentioning, inasmuch as it would not give much assistance to working men coming to this House.
    MR. J. B. BALFOUR: That is exactly the point I was coming to. When a working man becomes a candidate, the funds are generally contributed by men who are not well off, and who have to make sacrifices of their hard earnings to meet the expenses of their candidate. I think the House ought to be ready to remove any artificial barriers to the return of such candidates to this House. It is said that this is an unfortunate time to bring forward the Bill; but if we are to believe the whispers in the air, it is not very long that private Members will have any chance at all this Session to bring their questions forward, and if it
    1894
    were not brought forward now, it might be, I suppose, deferred until some future Session, or some future Parliament. The next argument is, that this is a step towards the payment of Members. I am not going into that question, which is entirely separate from the payment of election expenses. It seems to me that so far from the two questions being bound together, they are entirely dissociated. I know there are persons who are not favourable to the theory of paid Members, but who have advanced this as a proper remedy in the first instance, before the question of the payment of Members is considered. It has been said with great force that the payment of the official expenses at elections out of the rates will enable the class which is desirous of being represented to have a larger number of Members in the House than at present. But that is a question entirely dissociated from the subject of payment of Members. The next argument is that this is piecemeal legislation. If it were possible to carry a measure for the whole country we should be very glad to do so. But is any injustice done to the rest of the country by dealing with Scotland? Surely, England and Ireland are not so jealous as to deny Scotland that which would do them no harm. I have no doubt that if Scotland got this measure it would be a step towards the rest of the country obtaining it at no distant period. I am glad we have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire, who carried a Bill, which had application solely to Scotland, legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. That is a subject of interest to the whole country, for you must admit the universality of the interest which attaches to the domestic relations; yet the House did not hesitate to grant the Second Reading of my hon. Friend's Bill. Then, something was said about the duration of Parliament. If elections are to be more frequent, there will be the more necessity for some relief; and as to the question of vexatious elections, I do not think it is the poor men who are likely to indulge in vexatious contests. Still, it is a casual evil, occurring in a small number of constituences compared with the whole electorate, and it ought not to be used as an argument for preventing the constituencies having a free choice

    1895
    in the selection of their candidates. The expenses of various other elections are now paid out of the rates—School Board, Municipal, and County Council elections—and no candidate, whatever his official position may be, thinks it dishonouring that the official expenses of his election should be paid out of the public funds. Why should there be an exception in the case of Parliamentary elections? It really appears as if the argument in favour of this proposal was all one way. We have had other reforms working in Scotland— Sunday Closing for instance—long before they were extended to other parts of the country. Is there any reason why effect should not be given to the enormous preponderance of opinion in Scotland, because, I take it, that the majority of Members here represent the preponderance of opinion in Scotland? With respect to that part of the Bill which is not contentious, I think, perhaps, our English, friends owe us a little consideration because they have had a Schedule of expenses from 1875 and we are only getting one now. This question of the Schedule must be considered in Committee. It was considered with very great care in 1886. There has been, at all events, a very careful preparation, which I am glad to see the hon. Member for Caithness has adopted, and I should be very sorry if anything prevented this Bill becoming law now.
    (2.15.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. KIMBER: I rise not for the purpose of debating this Bill, but to draw attention to one defect in the position of the Members from Scotland who advocate it. The question the House has been debating is a pecuniary question, to which there are two parties—the candidates and their Members, who now pay the official expenses of the Returning Officer, and their constituents the ratepayers, to whom the Bill would transfer the burden. The question has been discussed from the point of view and in presence of only one of those parties. The constituents are represented here on the question only by their opponents in interest. Noevidence has been brought forward showing what the views of the constituencies are upon this
    1896
    point. I hope hon. Members from Scotland will be influenced by that delicacy of sentiment which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) describe d as existing in his breast, not to support this Bill, because to vote for it will be to vote in favour of their own pockets and against the interest of those whom they represent. I hold that the question of the apportionment of election expenses between Members and their constituents, is a question which ought to be submitted to the constituencies at the time of a General Election. We have nothing before us upon which we can rely as showing that the constituencies are willing to shift the burden of the expenses mentioned in the Bill from the candidates to the ratepayers. My belief is that the opinion of the constituents would be not that the ratepayers should bear the expense, but that the candidates who seek to have honour conferred upon them should defray the cost of the contest out of their own pockets.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: If the argument used by the hon. Member who has just sat down were pushed to its logical conclusion, we should be prevented from taking any step forward in legislation at all. He argues that because the Scottish electors are not specially represented on this question, the Scottish Members are precluded from giving a vote respecting it. We hold that the electors, as a body, are very ready to adopt and back up the votes we give in this House.
    MR. KIMBER: I only said there was no evidence of that.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: The evidence that we represent our constituents is, that we are in this House.
    MR. KIMBER: I beg pardon; what I meant to say was, there was no evidence as to what the opinion of the constituencies was on this particular question.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I think the evidence of the opinion of the constituencies is very clear, from the fact that they entirely acquiesced in the provisions of the Local Government Bill of last year, which imposed these official expenses in connection with County Council elections on the ratepayers. Having acquiesced in that, I think they are also ready to agree to the financial proposal contained in the Bill before the House. The main contention urged against the Bill is that

    1897
    the proposal to make the ratepayers defray the expenses of Returning Officers is too grave a matter to agree to with respect to one part of the United Kingdom only. That argument can at once be disposed of, because my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and we are very willing to accept Amendment in Committee to make it applicable to the whole country. Another criticism is that if the Bill passed an enormous number of vexatious contests will take place. From that view I altogether dissent, because it will be the interest of every ratepayer in Scotland to prevent such contests. That there might be an undue multiplication of candidates is a more valid objection. Recognising this, we are ready to accept an Amendment providing that a candidate must obtain a certain proportion of votes to entitle him to the payment of his expenses. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will probably be shortly opposing a Bill which proposes to give the Irish ratepayers the power of stopping licences by means of a direct veto. But if he thinks the Scottish Members are not capable of giving their votes on this question, as representing the people of Scotland in their absence from this House, and so expresses his distrust of the representative principle, he certainly ought to vote in favour of giving the power of direct veto to the people in Ireland. It seems to me that his conduct in the two instances is of a contradictory character.
    MR. KIMBER: I beg pardon again. I do not admit the analogy. The point I wished to make was that this was a matter of personal pocket interest, in which the interests of the constituents conflicted with those of the Members.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I support this Bill for another reason. I think it is a great pity that, as far as Scotland is concerned, we do not have a larger number of direct labour Representatives in the House of Commons. At present there are no such Representatives of Scottish constituencies. If the official expenses wore thrown on the rates it would be practicable for a labour candidate to come forward in many a constituency where it is now out of the question. I hope the Scottish Members will support the Bill, and will succeed in inflicting on the Government another of those defeats to
    1898
    which they have lately become so much accustomed.
    MR. KELLY: One of the Scotch Members gave us, I think, a very good reason for supporting this Bill. He said the poor Scotch Members did not like paying. That is, no doubt, very true, but the question is whether the poor Scotch ratepayers like paying. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Leng) spoke of the superior intelligence of the Scotch. I am not prepared to deny it, but I do not know what that has to do with the question, inasmuch as the Scotch people have not decided that this Bill ought to become law. The same hon. Member said that by opposing the Bill the House would be precipitating Home Rule for Scotland. That was a peculiar argument for the hon. Member to use, considering that before his election he pledged himself to support Scotch Home Rule. We were told by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that Scotland can have no labour candidates, because they cannot have their expenses paid. I think, however, that very recently there was a labour candidate in Lanarkshire; and the Scotch, people, by reason of their superior intelligence, declined to be represented by him. Many Members of this House have their expenses paid, and I do not know that they are any the worse as Members on that account. What I contend in opposition to the Bill is this. In the first place, I do not see how the House can consistently stop at the point to which we are asked to advance on this occasion. How can it be said that the payment of the Returning Officer's expenses, which may be estimated at between £100 and £150, bars the entry of representative labour candidates into the House of Commons? If the public are to pay the Returning Officer's expenses why should they not defray the other expenses and also pay the Members? I look upon the Bill in its present form as being simply the thin end of the wedge. There would be a strong argument in favour of the Bill if it could be shown that the House loses by the present system, but that has not been shown. Able representatives, whatever class they may belong to, are not kept out of Parliament by the present system. Personally, I am astonished to hear the argument about Members being at the mercy of

    1899
    Returning Officers. It is open to any Member to dispute the Returning Officer's charges, and they have been disputed with success in a number of cases. It may be that the Returning Officer's expenses should be limited, and that could be done very well by part of this Bill. If the change which is advocated takes place, many candidates will come forward from motives of vanity or in the pursuit of vulgar notoriety, and, consequently; there will be very a large additional number of contested elections all over the country; whilst from the complication of the issues before the electorate, it will be almost impossible to ascertain the general opinion of the country on the greater issues on which General Elections ought to turn.
    MR. PROVAND: The last two speakers on the other side of the House have dwelt on what they call the absence of all evidence that the people of Scotland desire this change. A very short reference to the history of the Bill will, I think, satisfy the House that there is plenty of evidence on this point. The measure has been five years before the House. It passed in the early Session of 1886, and was thrown out in another place. In 1887 I had charge of it in this House. I had some correspondence with the Secretary for Scotland respecting it, and pointed out to him that the majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of it. In 1888, 1889, and again in the present year the Bill has been introduced. Now, a Bill that comes before the House for five years in succession in reference to Scotland is quite certain to have been discussed in almost every constituency in the country. If the feeling of the people were against the measure plenty of evidence to that effect would certainly have been produced on the other side. In 1886 it was thrown out by the Lords, mainly on the ground that it was undesirable to make the change at a period so near to the General Election. That was not a satisfactory reason for rejecting the Bill, but it furnishes a very good reason why the question should be dealt with now, because we are continually nearing the next General Election. It has been already pointed out, in reply to objections on the other side, that if the Bill be of a local character it can be converted into
    1900
    an Imperial Bill by inserting an Amendment to make it apply to England and Ireland. No Scottish Member has the smallest objection to that. Indeed, we are satisfied that this Bill is merely the beginning. We know that this is the thin end of the wedge, as the last speaker said it was, and that the official cost of elections in England and Ireland as well as in Scotland, will ultimately be thrown either on the ratepayers or on the Consolidated Fund. The last speaker said the official expenses were from £100 to £150, but it was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridge ton (Sir G. Trevelyan) that in some Scottish counties the official expenses were nearly £1,200.
    MR. KELLY: That was stated as having taken place in 1885, and not having been repeated since.
    MR. PROVAND: No doubt in 1886 the expenses were lighter than that, but Members are still liable to enormous official expenses in all the Scottish counties. It is true that a reduction of the Returning Officer's charges might be obtained by means of an application to the Court of Session, but the Member would probably have to pay two sovereigns costs for every sovereign he got taxed off the bill. The total cost of the elections in Scotland in 1886 was £17,000, which, it was said, would amount to something like ¼d. in the £1 on the rates. I do not think it would amount to so much, and I certainly believe that if the Bill passed the £17,000 would be reduced by one-half, as Local Authorities would then be liable, and would see that the charges made were reasonable.
    (2.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 136.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Second Reading put off for six months.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LOCAL VETO) (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 14.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR.T.W. RUSSELL: The Bill, the Second Reading of which I now beg to move, has at least one recommendation; it is exceedingly simple in

    1901
    its provisions. In the first place it does not seek to alter the Licensing Authority in any way whatever. The Licensing Authority may be, as it is now, composed of Justices, or it may be the County Council, or the Local Board. In its preamble the measure affirms that the traffic in intoxicating liquors is one of the main causes of poverty, disease, and crime, that it depresses trade and commerce, increases local taxation, and endangers the safety and welfare of the community. I do not think there are any hon. Members who will care to traverse that proposition. The Bill endeavours to find a remedy for what is undoubtedly a bad state of things. All the Irish Members will agree with me that of late years drunkenness has increased in Ireland. All the authorities—the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, the clergy of the Protestant Church, the statistics of the police—all bear me out in saying that latterly drunkenness has greatly increased. What the Bill proposes to do is to give the ratepayers of any locality a threefold choice in regard to the liquor traffic. The ratepayers may either decree that there shall be no public houses and no public sale of intoxicating liquor in their midst, or they may decide how many places for the sale of intoxicating liquor there shall be, or they may decide whether new licences are to be granted or not. Therefore, the principle of the Bill is simply that the opinion of the locality shall decide in the matter of the sale of drink, and I am curious to hear what hon. Members below the Gangway have to urge against it. So far back as 1835, when Archbishop Whateley's Commission sat to inquire into the condition of the Irish poor, this question of the liquor traffic attracted public attention, and in 1836, the Commission reported that the liquor shops all over Ireland were greatly in excess of the needs of the people. Ireland has improved in many respects since that day, but it has improved very little in this respect. Hon. Members below the Gangway will agree with me that the small towns in the South and West of Ireland are literally studded with public houses, that are not needed by the people at all. I will give an illustration. Let us take the town of Ennis, in County Clare. The population is 6,300, and there are 100
    1902
    public houses. It has been generally admitted that one public house for every 500 of the population is a sufficient proportion. On such a basis, instead of 100, Ennis would have only 13 public houses. New Ross, in County Wexford, with 5,000 population has 106 drink shops; Mill street with 1,450 people has 32 houses; Ennistymon with 1,350 has 25; Mil-town Malbay with 1,400 has 36; Castle-island with 800 has 51; Portumna with 1,100 has 36; and Macroom with 3,000 has 53. Now, I do not hesitate to say that the Justices, and the Justices alone, are responsible for this congestion of public houses, and the Justices having crowded these small towns in the South and West of Ireland in this way, it is not unreasonable that they should be deprived of that power. Hence this Bill gives power to the people to instruct the Licensing Authority as to what their wants may be. No doubt the South of Ireland differs somewhat in this respect from the North, and I will now deal with two cases from the North. Lurgan, in County Armagh, has a population of 14,000. It is a busy, thriving, prosperous town, and one would imagine that there would be more liquor shops required than in small southern towns, where the same industry does not prevail. And yet, instead of 100, Lurgan has only 29 public houses, and I do not know of anyone in Lurgan who complains. Indeed, they think they are better off with this small number of public houses. I will now take another case, the town of Bess-brook, which has a population of 3,000. It also is a busy, thriving, prosperous place, and yet it has not a single public house. There total prohibition has been decreed, not by the voice of the people— that would be the proper way—but by the voice of the proprietor of the town. My position is that if the owner has the right to enforce this prohibition on 3,000 people, the occupiers of property should have the right to choose for themselves. What has been the result of the present system? I do not care what hon. Members who oppose the Bill may think of its provisions. They cannot feel satisfied with the present regulation of the liquor traffic. What even did the Bishop of Limerick do the other day? Hon. Members may differ from the Bishop on many points, but on this point, at least, ho must have the

    1903
    sympathy of every man. Here is a city in the South of Ireland that is not prosperous. It has a population of about 30,000, and yet it has no less than 300 public houses; and the Bishop of Limerick went to the Bench of Magistrates to remonstrate with them on the state of affairs. He charged them with the responsibility, and begged them to grant no new licences till the number should be reduced. I say that when a Bishop has to go and remonstrate with the Authorities, it is high time that the people had the power to interfere. But what are the figures as to drunkenness? For six or seven years after the passing of the Sunday Closing Act drunkenness rapidly declined.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Where?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: All over Ireland. In 1887 the arrests for drunkenness were 110,903. The Sunday Closing Act came into operation in October, 1878, and there were, therefore, in that year three months of total Sunday Closing throughout Ireland; the figures for 1878 fell to 107,000. In 1879 they fell again to 98,000, and in 1880 to 88,000, and in 1881 to 78,000. In 1882 they rose to 87,000, and in 1883 to 90,000, in 1884 to 92,000, and in 1885 they stood at 87,000, while in 1888 they stood at 87,582.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the figures in the different parts of the country where the Sunday Closing Bill was in operation and where it was not?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The figures are for the whole of Ireland, and this Bill deals with the whole of Ireland.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: What about the exempted districts?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Dublin is one of the exempted cities, and there were in that city, in 1886,18,115 arrests for drunkenness—drunkenness and disorderly conduct;inl887,18,590;inl888, 20,192; an increase of more than 2,000 in that city alone between 1886 and 1888. These are the facts of the increase of drunkenness in an exempted city, and my proposal is that with the Sunday Closing Act drunkenness has declined. What, then, are the objections to this method of dealing with that question? Many Motions have been placed upon the
    1904
    Notice Paper. There is our old friend "this day six months." That Motion I can understand. But another Motion stands in the name of the Member for South Tipperary, and asks the House not to touch this question in view of the Local Government Bill promised by the Government. But this proposal will not in any way affect the Bill. If the Local Government Bill proposed to create a Licensing Authority this measure would be strictly relevant and in order. My proposal, so far as this Bill is concerned, is that it does not matter who the Licensing Authority is. All the Bill says is, that before that Authority can act, before they can flood towns with public houses they shall receive instructions straight from the hearthstones of the people. So great is the evil that the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have become alarmed, and, only last week, they issued a pastoral, calling on the clergy to exert themselves in the matter. The Bishops ought not to be working in one direction and the law in the other. I hold that the function of the law is not to put temptation in people's way. It ought to make it easy for the people to do right, and difficult for them to do wrong. As matters stand, the Licensing Authorities are absolutely working against the Bishops in their work, and I ask that the people shall be given the power to restrain these magistrates from crowding the towns with licensed houses against their will. There is one question that may be raised, and, I admit, with some seriousness. Ever since this liquor traffic has been a public question the matter of compensation has been fought. I have pronounced views on that matter, and when the Local Government Bill was going through the House I opposed the compensation proposals. I am not against fair and reasonable compensation to the owners of licensed premises, but I am not in favour of that compensation coming out of Imperial taxation or local rates. I maintain that the old proposal of Mr. Bruce in this House in 1871, that where prohibition is decreed a time limit ought to be allowed, and that where restriction is enforced under this Bill those licensed proprietors who are left ought to pay those who are removed—is a fair and reasonable proposal, These are the

    1905
    reasons why I propose this Bill, and I now beg to move the Second Reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I rise for the purpose of proposing the Amendment which stands in my name. The hon. Member who has just moved the Second Reading of the Bill, in a very forcible speech, has stilted truly that we all agree that many evils are caused to our country and to our people by over-indulgence in intoxicating liquors. But there is one point upon which I cannot agree with him, and it is that he has the monopoly of desire among hon. Members from Ireland to promote temperance. I, too, desire the promotion of temperance in that country. I think we are all agreed as to the need for promoting it, but we disagree with regard to the manner in which that end is to be brought about. The hon. Member has alluded to the pastoral of the Bishops of Ireland, and he would have the House believe that the Bishops are at one with himself and the Party with whom he acts, in their plans for carrying out this desirable object. I defy the hon. Member or anybody else to point out in the whole course of the pastoral one idea or one expression that goes to show that the Bishops approve the methods proposed to be adopted by the hon. Gentleman. The Bishops, in the first place, lay down the proposition that it is necessary that throughout Ireland the cause of temperance should be taken in hand as a work to be carried on with the sanction and under the blessing of the Church. That is our position. We believe that this cause is to be promoted best by the voluntary action of the people under the blessing of the Church to which they belong. But the Bishops do not stop at this point for they go on to say that they are not disposed to concur with the too drastic methods proposed not only by this Bill but by many Bills which have been introduced in this House from time to time. They think it necessary, in the first instance, to explain that the word temperance has come to be used by many in an unduly restricted sense. It has not infrequently been used as if it meant precisely the same thing as total abstinence, and the
    1906
    Bishops call upon the clergy to carefully explain to the faithful that this is a manifest error. Temperance, they say, is one thing, and total abstinence is another; and it is essential to keep clearly in view the difference between the two. That is the opinion of the Bishops of Ireland, which has been appealed to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I did not appeal to the Bishops further than this: I said that while they were promoting temperance in their way the law should not be working against them.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I maintain that the law is not working against them, and I am endeavouring to show the House that the hon. Member and his friends are beginning at the wrong end. They wish to carry legislation in a wrong direction. Our object is to place it on a more solid foundation. One principle of this Bill, to which I give my entire adhesion, is the curtailment or restriction in granting licences in Ireland, and I may say that a Bill is about to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Longford, and will be backed by myself, which will have in view the attainment of that end. A great deal of the evil which exists in Ireland, and elsewhere, is undoubtedly duo to the fact that there are too many licensed places, and I came away from the deliberations of the Commission on Sunday Closing in Ireland, two years ago, fully convinced that in any scheme for promotimg temperance in Ireland, one of the first proposals should be to curtail the unnecessary distribution and granting of licences. I venture to think that the excess in the number of licences encourages illicit trading, and that a restriction of the number would throw the trade in the hands of more respectable people. Now, the hon. Member for South. Tyrone quoted a number of figures, and I propose to show to the House that they were to a great extent misleading. I do not, of course, suggest that they were intentionally so, but when the hon. Member for South Tyrone pointed out that there were 100 public-houses in Ennis, he omitted to add that those public-houses were not places merely for supplying intoxicating drinks, and that they were not only intended for the accommodation of the population of Ennis

    1907
    itself. Any one who knows that place must be aware that enormous numbers of people come into the town marketing, and also that in the country round about there is a great scarcity of public-houses. Then, again, these licensed premises are also used for other businesses. They consist of grocers' shops and of drapery establishments.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That makes it so much the worse.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: It often happens that in a small town in Ireland it is necessary for shopkeepers to carry on businesses of a varied character, otherwise they would find it impossible to get a living. Consequently, you often see one man selling, in addition to excisable liquors, paper, bread, drapery, and grocery goods. And now I come to the provisions of the Bill itself. I should like to point out, in the first place, that it gives no power to the Justices to fix the number or character of the licences required in any particular part of Ireland. The Justices would not be influenced by the opinions expressed by the people themselves, and one principal objection we have to this Bill is, that two-thirds of those who vote will have the power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors altogether, or to say that no new licences shall be granted. Now, let us suppose, for instance, that this vote is taken in a district in which there are 100 voters. According to the Bill, one-tenth of the voters can initiate an election on the point, that is to say—10 out of the 100 voters can start proceedings under the Bill. Then, when the election takes place, it may be that only 30 will record their votes. Out of those, 20 may decide, two-thirds, so that it will come to pass that 20 persons will have the power of binding 100. The hon. Member shakes his head, but does he know—he must know—how these things work in Ireland and elsewhere. On these matters the people do not vote generally unless their votes are touted for by Associations. Very often they are away from home, and their wives or daughters fill up the papers. Even if it were ballot-voting, no expression of public opinion would be arrived at, for people will not take the smallest interest in things like these; they will not, as they will in a Parliamentary or
    1908
    Muncipal election, give up a day's work or put off a jouney in order to vote. The Bill, I say, might be put in operation by 20 men out of a hundred, not more than 20 per cent, of the people voting, or, at the most, say 30 per cent., and it would be a monstrous injustice to bind up a hundred people, and close public; houses, which may be a convenience to these, on the votes of 20. I cannot suppose that the House of Commons will agree to such a proposal. Then we come to the matter of licences. Suppose there are a hundred licensed houses in a district, that this first Resolution is not carried, that the sale of liquor is permitted, but that the second Resolution is carried, and that the number of licences may be reduced to a certain number specified in the notice, no provisions are to be found in the Bill for deciding upon what basis these clauses are to be carried out. First of all, it is not stated how we are to arrive at the number. Many persons might vote that the 100 houses might be reduced to 60, others to 50 or 40. How are the Justices to arrive at what the number should be? Say the number is 50, what provision is there for deciding which 50 licences shall be abolished? How is it to be decided if Smith, or Brown, or Jones, or Robinson, shall lose his licence? Is the selection to be made by favour; is it to be by judgment; if by judgment, upon whose judgment? Or are licences to be taken in alphabetical order, or by streets, or by priority of issue? These are matters upon which the House ought to be enlightened before passing this Bill. An hon. Member near me suggests Committee, but I doubt very much whether any Committee ever yet formed by the House of Commons can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner. Then, the hon. Member has referred to the question of compensation, and, of course, he very wisely and properly says he is not altogether opposed to the principle of compensation. But who are to compensate when a licence is extinguished? Is it the State, or is the compensation to come from those the value of whose property is enhanced by the restrictions upon, or extinguishment of, licenses? I find that one portion of the Bill says that a voter in any town, division, or district, by notice in writing, not later than May the next year, may

    1909
    put this Bill into operation. And let us suppose in Dublin, where there are 15 wards, the people of one ward decide to put the Bill into operation, and the people in a neighbouring ward do not. How will the cause of temperance be promoted by the Bill? How are oven the objects the hon. Member has in view to be attained? Would it not be quite easy for the people of one ward to go into the other, and get any drink they might require? A man who desires to get drunk will not be prevented, and only inconvenience will be put in the way of those men who make a proper use of a public-house, as many men do. The proportion of publicans in one ward will be extinguished; while in the other ward the property will be enhanced in value, and I cannot see any gain to the cause of temperance in such a proceeding. Its injustice is only another proof supporting my conviction that hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. Member for South Tyrone, by continually introducing crude, unsatisfactory, and reckless measures, help to defeat themselves; and their efforts to promote temperance are abortive. The hon. Gentleman has quoted statistics, and I could quote statistics. The Bishops of Ireland are going the right way in this matter. They are men who understand human nature, men who, above all things, know that the people will not be coerced into virtue, and who appeal to other motives; not by the addition of one more to these crude and ill-considered attempts at legislation, which never command the support of practical men. The hon. Member made considerable reference in his speech to the necessity for curtailing the power of Justices in granting licences, and there I agree with him, but he would place in the hands of the people at large the power of compelling Justices to reduce the number of licences already granted. I have endeavoured to show that this Bill will be put in operation by a very small section of people, generally a few fanatics who will go about and induce people to sign voting papers, and thus a small percentage of people would exercise a power to inflict great injury upon traders. Take the present agitated state of Ireland—though I do not base my arguments on that. I wish to argue as if the country were in a normal state—but at
    1910
    present this power might be put into operation with terrible effect against a certain class of traders. Suppose the Bill passed, and after May next year the people in a certain district decide that the number of licences shall be reduced—say in Ennis—from 100 to 50, so that Justices would have suddenly placed in their hands the power of reducing licences by 50 per cent.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is an hon. Gentleman standing with his baton.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not likely that these Justices would use this power for the purpose of persecuting those publicans who are known to hold strong Nationalist opinions? I say, therefore, that Irish Nationalist Members ought to hesitate before placing in the hands of Justices this terrible engine, which undoubtedly the Justices would use against political opponents. I alluded just now to the question of compensation, and I referred to the possibility of one of the wards of Dublin deciding to close public houses. Suppose out of 100 houses 50 are closed. I think I am not going too far when I say that each of these would be worth £2,000; here you would have £100,000 worth of property swept away with a stroke of the pen and a vote brought about in the manner I have described. These are the only observations I have to offer on the provisions of the Bill, and now I come to the Resolution I have to propose, asking the House to declare the inexpediency of further legislation, pending the introduction of the Local Government Bill, of which notice has been given. We know that in the Local Government Bill proposed for England there were provisions for the regulation of the liquor traffic. These provisions were dropped, and are in abeyance for the present, but we have no reason to suppose that the Government do not intend in the Irish Bill to include some such provisions in regard to licenses, and I think the strongest argument for introducing some such provisions has been urged by the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) himself, who has declaimed against the action of justices in Ireland. I agree with him in the opinion that the Justices have abused the power in their hands. I believe they are on too intimate terms with wealthy owners and merchants and have been too

    1911
    inclined to grant licences where there were no excuses for doing so. I believe that strong necessity exists for altering the Licensing Authority, but until the Authority is altered by future legislation I strongly object to giving to a scratch vote of the people the power to curtail existing licences. The whole trouble in this matter in Ireland has arisen from the reckless manner in which licences have been granted, and I sincerely hope that before long we shall have before us a measure restraining this power. By restricting the issue of licences you will practically bring the trade into the hands of people whoso interest it will be to conduct their business within the requirements of the law, and to dispense better liquor than some of them now do. The reckless distribution of licences has had a most detrimental effect on the trade, I am convinced, as well as on the health of the people. The trade is so distributed that traders, to meet the cost of licences, and high, rents, are led to encourage trade by selling at unlawful hours and to increase profits by adulteration. I hope, therefore, that by a gradual process, and the refusal to grant new licences, the trade may be confined within a narrower circle. Unfortunately, it too often happens that Justices in Ireland grant licences to retired constables, who know nothing whatever about the trade, and who, released from the restraints and discipline of the force, relapse into the worst of habits. So, also, the Justices grant licences to the widows of old servants, who are in no position to know the requirements of the trade, and who often appeal against the law from sheer ignorance and incapacity. Unsuccessful farmers, too, embark in the trade, and set up houses in small towns, through the facility with which they can get licences by means of the acquaintance of somebody who is intimate with "His honour." These add the sale of drink to a grocery business, and, having no knowledge or business capacity, get into debt, ruin themselves, and bring discredit on the trade, while injuring the business of their more competent neighbours. Holding the views I have expressed, I oppose the Bill, and have put down this Resolution, and I look forward to legislation that will carry out the principle of local veto, to which I am not strongly opposed, and which, carried out in a
    1912
    manner that will give satisfaction to the popular will, I would support. And now I must trouble the House on another subject, and place before it some of the evidence collected by the Select Committee about two years ago, because that Committee considered not only the question of Sunday Closing, but of closing public houses on Saturday, and as this Bill has for its object not only the curtailment of licences, but the entire closing' of public-houses, it will be necessary for me to refer to the opinion of those best qualified to judge of the operation of the laws controlling the liquor trade. Before I proceed to quote, let me say that I am strongly in favour of the control of public-houses, and I would have that control exercised from chimney-top to basement. I would have public-houses open to inspection at all hours. I only wish I had the drafting of a scheme for the promotion of temperance in Ireland. [Laughter] Hon. Members may laugh; but I would draft a Bill that should be effectual; there should be no bringing in Bills year after year, which have no chance of passing, and which are often an outrage upon common sense. These Bills do not pass; it is a longtime since the House passed an Act for regulating the liquor trade in Ireland. Many of those who were in favour of this legislation have changed their opinions. When a Bill regulating the liquor traffic was last passed, those who represented Ireland in this House were men who had cellars of their own. Are 70 per cent of the Irish Members now in favour of this legislation? Certainly not. They are evenly divided on this subject; and I believe there is a strong feeling among the Irish Members that a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin would be the only Parliament capable of legislating on this subject without damage to the various interests that are concerned, while promoting, at the same time, the objects we have at heart. I do not yield to any man in a desire to promote the welfare of the Irish people; but I maintain that the passing into law of a Bill of this kind would result in evils of a very serious character. When the Committee were sitting upstairs we asked many of the witnesses what would be the effect of Sunday closing. One very important

    1913
    witness, Mr. Lanetti, the representative of the United Trades of Dublin, said there was a consensus of opinion, that as wages were paid on Friday nights and Saturday forenoon—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to a point of order. The Bill which was before the Select Committee stands on the Orders for the 20th April. I wish to ask your ruling, Sir, whether the hon. Member is at liberty to discuss that Bill on another Bill which has no relation whatever to it?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the details of the Bill, but mere reference to it would be out of order.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I have not referred to the Bill, nor was it in my mind. The Bill now before the House has for its object the closing of public-houses every day in the week in any district where the people vote in favour of it; and if I can prove it to be a great hardship to close public-houses on any one day surely it strengthens my arguments against this Bill. Mr. Lanetti pointed out that the men have their wages in their pockets all day Saturday, and that the closing of public houses an hour or two earlier would be of no benefit, while it would cause great inconvenience to the working classes generally. Another result which Mr. Lanetti anticipated from early closing on Saturdays would be that the men would take homo bottles of porter over night. Further, in reply to Mr. Theodore Fry, he expressed a fear that the curtailing of hours would lead to she beening, and procuring drink illicitly. The Rev. Canon Sheehan, of Cork, who was also called as a witness, said the early closing of public-houses on Saturdays would largely increase the temptation to take drink home on Saturday nights; it would increase home drinking on Sundays, and would lead to stupid, idle, wasted Sunday mornings. Further, he said that it would be a greater evil to create home drinkers than to allow men to get drunk in public-houses. He held that 10 cases of drunkenness at home were worse than 20 cases in a public-house. The curtailment would also lead to the establishment of drinking clubs. Now, the President of the United Trades of Cork, in his evidence, said he had never tasted intoxicating liquors in his life; but his intimate acquaintance
    1914
    with the social life of the people had forced him to the conclusion that the evils which would be produced by closing public-houses would be greater than those which this Bill proposes to remedy. He condemned strongly the practice of home drinking, which was simply ruinous to families and children, by reason of the bad example it set. A strong feeling-exists—I think I can show—among the working classes of Dublin and Cork, and of Ireland generally, against such a measure as this; while men who are thoroughly acquainted with the requirements of the people are also opposed to a Bill like this; on the ground that it would set up greater evils than it professes to put down. A well-known priest of Belfast also gave evidence before the Committee, which had a similar bearing. Ho said—
    "We are strongly of opinion that there are other means whereby the cause of temperance could be promoted more effectually than by this Bill. The improvement of the social condition of the working classes would do much more to promote temperance than any coercive legislation."
    Mr. O'Donnell, an experienced Dublin magistrate, said before the Committee —
    "It is hopeless to expect, by any change in the law, to make the drunken classes (speaking of the labourers) more sober until there is improvement in their wretched domiciles."
    Similar opinions have been expressed by Resident Magistrates, doctors, and other persons well qualified to speak upon the subject. The Mayor of Sligo said—"I do not believe people can be made sol or by force or by coercion." Mr. Irving, a Resident Magistrate held that, if the houses of the poor were improved sanitarily that would be much more effectual in promoting temperance than any legislation. Dr. Burn, of Dublin, said—
    "I think the proper way of making the people sober is to educate the masses and provide proper places of amusement for them."
    I now wish to lay before the House a few statistics as to the effects of Sunday closing in Ireland; and the figures I propose to quote show, I submit, that there has been a decrease of drunkenness in those parts of Ireland where the Sunday Closing Act has not been in operation, and that there has been an increase where it has been in operation. In Dublin, in the two years between April, 1877, and April, 1879, the arrests for Saturday drunkenness numbered

    1915
    10,754; in the two years from May, 1885, to May, 1887, they fell to 8,440. And in. connection with these figures it is important to note the number of per sons using the public-houses. On the 10th March, 1888, 14,582 persons entered 30 public-houses; on the 18th March, 1886, the number entering 30 public-houses -was 13,426. In Belfast, in 1874, four years before the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, the number of arrests on Sundays was 396, and in 1882, after the Act had come into operation, the number rose to 512. In Belfast also the number of Saturday arrests was as follows:—1878, 2,036; 1879, 2,207; 1885, 1880; and 1886, 1,540. In Cork, in 1874, the Sunday arrests amounted to 319; in 1879, they rose to 480; and in 1884 they stood at 499. The number of Saturday arrests in that city were:—1880, 768; 1883, 557; 1884, 662; 1885, 602; 1886, 477; and 1887, 451. Judging by these results, the public will scarcely appreciate the expediency of further curtailing the trade, when past restrictions have only tended to in crease drunkenness, while where the restrictions have not been in operation arrests for drunkenness have decreased. In Waterford the Saturday arrests fell from 426 in 1877 to 225 in 1887. The passing of the Act did not effect the Saturdays; therefore, it shows that when you allow the natural inclination of the people to operate, and do not restrict their ability to get drink whenever they choose, and do not encourage them to take drink home with them, they be come more temperate. In Clonmel the number of Saturday arrests—
    MR. SPEAKER: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member; but these statistic, I must point out, boar on closing public-houses on a particular day; whereas this Bill deals with the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: Yes, Sir. My intention is to show that the curtailment of the hours of sale has resulted in an increase, rather than a decrease, of drunkenness, and that this Bill would have an effect contrary to that which is desired.
    MR. SPEAKER: I consider that the statistics which the hon. Member has been quoting relates to a Saturday or a
    1916
    Sunday Closing Bill; but not to the Bill before the House.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will not further refer to statistics, but will proceed with another part of the subject which I hold to be quite as important. I am strongly of opinion—and there is no stronger conviction I brought away from the sittings of the Committee—that not only the curtailment of the hours of sale, but the closing of the houses would result in an enormous increase in shebeens in Ireland. I could not make my case complete without drawing the attention of the House to the evidence given before the Committee on this head. First of all, we have the statistics given by the police of Dublin and elsewhere. It appears from these that in the Metropolitan District in 1876—before the passing of the Sunday Closing Act—the number of convictions for illicit sale was 245; whereas in 1883, after the passing of the Act, the number was 370; showing an increase of over 100 on the previous number. That is to say, that five years after the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, which reduced the hours of opening in Dublin by nearly two, the number of detected shebeens—and there is a great difference between the number of detected shebeens and the number undetected—had increased 51 per cent. In this result of the closing of public-houses compulsorily I am borne out by priests, mayors of towns, Poor Law Guardians, and every man who has ability to understand and opportunity to judge of the operation of these laws. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill gave us some very interesting statistics to show that drunkenness is on the increase. Well, that is so; but it is in consequence of restricting the proper use of public-houses. The number of cases of drunkenness before the magistrates increased from 64,506 in 1874 to 68,678 in 1882—an increase of 4,172 cases in the area embraced by the Act; while in that portion of Ireland not embraced by the Act—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Waterford—the number of cases of drunkenness taken before the magistrates decreased from 32,932 in 1874 to 19,019 in 1882, or a decrease of 13,913. These figures will, I hope, convince the House of the inexpediency of passing any further legislation on this subject. Now, I have alluded to what

    1917
    many of us believe to be the proper means of promoting temperance, and that is giving facilities for the building of artizans' dwellings, and increasing the comfort of the people by establishing parks and encouraging legitimate amusements, rather than bringing forward restrictive and coercive legislation. We believe that coercion will fail in its object, no matter to what it may be applied. Wherever restrictive legislation is put into operation it proves a failure. I was anxious that before this Bill came on the Report of the Royal Commission on Sunday Closing in Wales might be introduced to the notice of the House. The Report, however, has not yet made its appearance, and I can only hope that it will do so before the other Bill—for we are surrounded by measures of this kind—comes on for discussion. Sunday closing has been in operation for some years in Wales, and yet many important persons capable of forming sound judgments on social questions, and who have many opportunities of observing the operation of legislation, have reason to feel grave dissatisfaction at the working of the Welsh Act. That dissatisfaction was so strongly expressed by a Judge on the Bench, by a certain noble Lord of great influence in Wales, and by the editors of great and important Welsh newspapers, that the Government of the day appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter. Well, a very strong opinion, adverse to the continuance of the Sunday Closing Act, has been expressed. ["No, no."] I do not say by the Royal Commission; but no one can deny that such opinion has been expressed by Mr. Justice Grant, by Lord Aberdare, and by many Welsh newspapers; and I complain that in the face of such opinions as these, and before the Royal Commission has reported, we should be asked to put our seal and stamp on the crude and insufficient measure brought before our notice to-day. We are asked to proceed on lines condemned by such high authorities. We are asked to promote temperance by a method not even approved of by the Irish Bishops—even condemned by them in their Pastoral. ["No, no."] Well, I have read out the words of the Bishops, who appeal not to Acts of Parliament but to religion, and the grace which they beseech the Almighty will bestow on the people.
    1918
    I was able, a short time ago, when discussing the question of closing public-houses all day on Sundays, to read to the House the opinions of police magistrates, police inspectors, and chief constables, in charge of large and important districts in Scotland, who wrote saying that the Forbes Mackenzie Act had been an entire and complete failure. In many parts of Scotland, if facilities wore afforded for the gathering of information, I am sure that such information would all point to the failure of these Acts of Parliament in Scotland. And not only is it in Wales and Scotland that these Acts have been proved to be failures, but outside this kingdom many countries have been obliged to depart from the lines on which they have been legislating in this respect. Many States in America have abandoned total prohibition, and other States have only abstained from doing it because prohibition is embodied in their Constitution—and when a law is made part of a Constitution in the United State, it requires a two-thirds majority to abolish it, and that, obviously, is a majority not easy to obtain. I feel confident that if it were not for this difficulty, prohibition would disappear from the laws of the United States, and for the reason that the American people are in the habit of legislating according to the principles of common sense. In the face of these facts, I would ask the House to hesitate before accepting the principle of this Bill. I have endeavoured to show the House that if public houses are closed in some districts and kept open in others, as would undoubtedly be the case under the operation of this Bill, drunkenness will not be prevented, while the inhabitants of districts where the houses are closed will be seriously inconvenienced. I have pointed out that the Bill would be utterly inoperative, unless closing were general; and on all the grounds I have mentioned I oppose the Bill. It is, I believe, inexpedient to introduce any further legislation on this subject until the proposals of the Government on Irish Local Government are known; and, while I am as anxious as any one to promote the cause of temperance, I feel that this measure is too drastic in its principle, and would not effect the object intended, and I therefore move its rejection.
    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 proposal by Government to introduce during the present Session a Local Government Bill for Ireland, it is inexpedient to further legislate for the control and regulation of the trade in excise able liquors in Ireland until the House shall have ascertained the scope and powers of such Local Authorities as it is the intention of the Government to create."—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. NOLAN: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion, and I wish to do so in as few words as possible after the able statement of my hon. Friend. We are all agreed as to the object which the promoters of the Bill have at heart, namely, the promotion of the temperance movement amongst the Irish people, and we only differ as to the means. The promoters of the Bill believe that the object in view will best be attained by coercion. I, for one, believe that the object in view will he better attained by education. The hon. Member for South Tyrone pointed to the great improvement that has taken place in the temperance of the people, declaring that drunkenness is less common than it used to be. I am glad to be able to bear out the hon. Member's statement in that respect. I know, as a matter of personal observation, that drunkenness in the rural districts in Ireland has become rare: whereas it was rather prevalent many years ago. But I do not admit that this happy change has been brought about by anything in the shape of coercive legislation. There were, in fact, marked changes in the habits of the people before this House resorted to coercive legislation; and, in my opinion, education, and the influence of the pastors, have produced the improvement noted. Now, we are all agreed that this measure is a very important one; but I can scarcely congratulate the hon. Gentleman in charge of it on his endeavour to force it through the House on a Wednesday afternoon in the absence of a great majority of the Members. I think the hon. Member would have
    1920
    better served the object he and his friends have in view if he had used his great influence with the Government to secure a whole day for the discussion of the Bill, when it might have been adequately discussed in a full House. The prohibition of the sale of drink has been tried in other countries, and not with the best results. I dare say all hon. Members received this morning a Circular containing a letter from a former Member of this House, who is himself an ardent temperance advocate. This gentleman (Mr. Plimsoll) gives his experience of the liquor law in the State of Maine. He says that there, right at the headquarters of the great Generalissimo of prohibition (General Neil Dow), he finds that, notwithstanding the fact that the sale of drink is absolutely prohibited, there are no fewer than 300 houses where drink is openly sold. Moreover, he finds that the number of arrests for drunkenness in that town is quite as large as that in most other towns of the same size in the Union, where the sale of intoxicating drink is not prohibited. I find, too, that the hon. Member for the City of Derry (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) states that when he was in the State of Maine he could walk into a grocer's shop and buy drink without the slightest difficulty. I contend that the setting a law of the kind in question at nought must have a very demoralising effect on the people. I notice also that in a debate in the other House a noble Lord said that the operation of the Maine Liquor Law had driven him into a criminal conspiracy with an innkeeper in the United States. When it produces such an effect upon one of the pillars of the State, what effect may it be supposed to have upon a humbler member of society? I yield to no one in my desire to promote temperance amongst the Irish people; but I fully believe that the promotion of temperance will not be secured by any drastic measures, such as those I find embodied in this Bill. It is for this reason that I beg to support very heartily the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    MR. J. WILSON: I rise to make one or two observations in consequence of something that has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tip-perary (Mr. J. O'Connor). I cannot sit still when I hear the hon. Gentleman

    1921
    state, as regards Scotland, what I consider to be entirely contrary to the facts. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Scotch Sunday Act as an entire failure, and said he was borne out in this statement by magistrates and other officials. I am sorry to bring the hon. Gentleman to book. Last year, when the hon. Gentleman, spoke on this subject, he read an extract from a pamphlet, and led the House to believe that the statement ho quoted was that of the Lord Provost of Glasgow. I asked him for the name of the Lord Provost, and, after considerable hesitation, he said the name was that of a Roman Catholic ecclesiastic—a provost of that denomination. Sir James Kay was at that time Lord Provost of Glasgow, and that gentleman has never expressed the opinion that the Scotch Sunday Closing Act is a failure. And I am here to flatly contradict the hon. Gentleman in stating that the magistrates and other officials in Scotland are against the Sunday Closing Act in Scotland. I am satisfied of this, that no Member of Parliament, no man in any official position in Scotland will rise in the face of a Scotch audience and advocate the abrogation of the Sunday Closing Act. The hon. Member for South Tipperary condemns this Bill. It is a Bill that I highly appreciate, and I only wish the people of Scotland had an opportunity of adopting such a Bill. This Bill is a permissive Bill. It does not interfere in the slightest degree with the machinery now in operation for the granting or withholding of licenses. It is a Bill which puts into the hands of the ratepayers, who are the parties interested in the matter, the power of carrying out their wishes in regard to the liquor traffic. There is no coercion about the measure; indeed, the coercion is all on the other side, inasmuch as the present law gives power to Justices of the Peace, and to magistrates of the counties, the power to grant licences over the heads of the people, to their demoralisation and to their great hurt socially. I maintain that the philanthropist of the present day, whether his efforts are directed to religion or to charity, or to whatever else, is baulked in his endeavours by the extravagant indulgence in strong drink on the part of the people. We ought to give the people a chance of redeeming
    1922
    themselves from this curse, and you never can give them that chance unless you give them the opportunity of carrying into effect what they desire. We hear a great deal about the housing of the poor; I wish all success to the movement, but I hold that that success is greatly retarded by the indulgence in strong drink. Wherever you plant a licensed house, there you will find crime, immorality, poverty, and disease rampant. If we wish to do good for our fellows, we should remove every obstacle to their rise in the social scale. This Bill is a step in the right direction. The hon. Gentleman said that some doctor in Dublin says that a cure for drunkenness is to give the people the benefit of additional amusements. Within the last few days I had the pleasure of being in the company of one of the Senators of Victoria, and he told me that in his country they have eight hours work, eight hours play, and eight hours sleep; that every amusement is provided for the people, and yet they drink far more than we Britishers do. I should be very glad to see the people have more amusements than they have, hut the provision of amusements will never cure the radical evil which, is in our midst. In conclusion, I have only to say I hope the hon. Member for South Tipperary will never again declare in this House that Scotland wishes the abrogation of the Sunday Closing Act.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I altogether fail to see how any person who holds the opinion that the liberties of the people should be extended can possibly oppose this measure, because the only object of the Bill is to give the people the power to do what they wish. Whatever a Sunday Closing or a Saturday Closing Act may he, this Bill cannot possibly be described as coercive. It merely proposes to allow the people to prohibit, if they think fit, the sale of liquor, and to regulate the number of licences. I am very sorry that the people are not able to exercise powers of this hind in reference to a great many things in Ireland, and I certainly will support this Bill. There are, however, one or two matters which will require amendment in Committee. In the first place,

    1923
    the majority of two thirds is altogether too small. I think it should be a three-fourths majority. The hon. Member for South Tipperary opposes the Bill because he believes that a very small percentage of the people will vote under the powers of the Bill. He believes that only 30 per cent, of the people will vote. Does he mean to say that the remainder of the people care so very little for the subject that they will not take the trouble to vote? I assert that the people who will be opposed to this law will take more care to vote than they will to vote in regard to any other matter. I cannot sit down without remarking that if this Bill does not come to a successful ending I must attribute it very largely to the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member holds opinions which differ very considerably from those of hon. Members on these Benches, who are just as anxious to see the evil results of excessive drinking in Ireland done away with, and if he is really anxious to do good in this case and to enlist the co-operation of hon. Members in this part of the House, he must cease to use the language in regard to us which he is in the habit of holding in different parts of the country. I received to-day a newspaper containing the pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Dublin and other Bishops on the temperance question, and I find in another portion of the paper the following quotation—
    "The Parnellites are the body-slaves of the most murderous association of scoundrels that ever disgraced the world."
    I assure him that, in holding language of that kind with reference to us, he is injuring the temperance cause as it never was injured by any man before.
    MR. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I should like to know why the hon. Member for Go van (Mr. J. Wilson), holding the views he does, did not endeavour to help the House last night when a Scotch Liquor Bill was on the Paper? I have always regarded the state of things in Scotland as a reason why this repressive legislation should not be advanced further. Amongst the Scotch Members there certainly is a very great difference
    1924
    of opinion on this subject. I had not the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but the hon. Members who have spoken on the same side of the question have not addressed themselves to the provisions of the 15th clause. The opposition which I offer to the Bill is based entirely on what I hold to be the new principle which is to be found in that clause. Hitherto the Teetotal Party have confined their attacks to the Licensed Victuallers, but this Bill provides that the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be prohibited if the people think fit. I apprehend that is to extend to wine and spirit shops: that no wine and spirit merchant is to be allowed to carry on his avocation. I also apprehend that the Bill will extend to breweries. But there are clubs where intoxicating liquors are sold. I see that the hon. Member is a member of the Ulster Reform Club. Does he mean to say this Bill should go the length of closing that club?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should be very glad if intoxicating liquor was excluded from the Ulster Reform Club.
    MR. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The hon. Member now proposes to close all Licensed Victuallers' premises, all wine and spirit shops, all breweries, 111 clubs; indeed, every place where intoxicating liquors are sold. I, therefore, think the Bill is one of the most tyrannical measures ever proposed, and that it ought not to be accepted in a free country. The hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. W. Redmond) thinks the people ought to be consulted in this matter. But you only intend to consult the ratepayers, and they are not the only people interested in the sale of liquor. What right has a householder to speak for all the inmates of his house, who may number 10, 15, or 20? This Bill—
    (5.25.) MR. THOMAS W. RUSSELL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes 165, Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    (5.40.) The House divided:—Ayes 124, Noes 131.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That, in view of the proposal by Government to introduce during the present Session a Local Government Bill for Ireland, it is inexpedient to further legislate for the control and regulation of the trade in excisable liquors in Ireland until the House shall have ascertained the scope and powers of such Local Authorities as it is the intention of the Government to create.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.—(No. 194.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASE (PREVENTION) BILL.—(No. 80.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Commiitee.)
  Clause 18.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  And, it being Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  It being after Six of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put till To-morrow.