Commons Sitting of 6 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the. County of Fermanagh (North Fermanagh), in the room of Edward Mervyn Archdale, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  London Hydraulic Power Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—
  Black heath and Greenwich District Electric Light Bill.
  Market Drayton Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE, BILL (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the
  4
  Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  Coventry Electric Tramways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PETITIONS.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Pitsligo; Longside; Tyrie; Kilbarchan; and Kildalton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1903–4 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Estimate presented, showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 58.]
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—

  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 59.]
  ALIENS.
  Address for "Return showing the names of all aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued, and who have taken the oath of allegiance, between the first day of January 1902, and the 31st day of December, 1902, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any aliens who have, during the same period, obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 184, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Congested Districts in Caithness.
  MR. HABMSWOBTH(Caithness-shire): To ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received an application to declare the parish of Halkirk, Caithness, a congested district; and, if so, what decision they have come to in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Parish Council of Halkirk, at the end of last year, applied to the Congested Districts Board asking that a portion of the parish should be declared a congested district. The Congested Districts Board, in reply, has asked for the information necessary to enable them to come to a decision, hut no answer has as yet been received by the Board.

  Report of Inspector of Factories—Return of Lead Poisoning.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE(Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first part of the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops may be expected; and whether a Return of the analysed numbers of cases of lead poisoning in the potting industry, such as has been given annually for three years, is to be published in the present year without being moved for.
  [Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The Chief Inspector hopes that, if the printers are as prompt in their work as last year, the first part of his Annual Report will be ready for issue before the end of May. The Return of cases of lead poisoning has been moved for and will be published without delay.

  Church Discipline—Prosecutions for Illegal Practices.
  MR. CUBITT(Surrey, Reigate): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return for the last ten years of cases in which application has been made to a bishop for leave to prosecute a clergyman for illegalities, and of the result of such applications.
  6
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that the hon. Member refers to information such as that contained in a Return of Proceedings under the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, which was published in 1899. That Return carries the matter down to the year 1898, and I am prepared to have it continued to the end of last year.

  Railways in West Africa—Shelford and Son, of London.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the firm of Slielford and Son, London, received any commission, and, if so, how much, on the cost of the railways lately built, or at present under construction in West Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Messrs. Slielford and Son are remunerated for their services as consulting engineers by a salary from the funds of each Colony which employs them in that capacity, and their out-of-pocket expenses for office and clerks are refunded to them. They have not received any commission on the cost of the railways lately built or at present under construction in West Africa.

  Uganda Railway—Crown Agents' Commission.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Post-I master General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the 1 per cent. which the Crown Agents were authorised to make on all supplies and materials shipped by them for the construction of the Uganda Railway, went to form a pension fund for the said agents and the other officials in the office; and, if not, to what expenses of the office was this percentage credited.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The commission of 1 per cent. charged by the Crown Agents on the Uganda Railway supplies is credited, as received, to the Agents' Office Fund, like any other charges made against Colonial

  7
  Governments. From that fund are defrayed all the expenses of the Crown Agents' Office, and any annual balance to the credit of that fund is available for the increase of the reserve fund, which has been accumulated, as explained in the Secretary of State's Circular of 31st December 1863 (printed in C. 3075 of 1889), for certain purposes, including the provision of retiring pensions for the Crown Agents and their staff.

  South African Constabulary—Compensation for Loss of Kit.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the men of the South African Constabulary who lost their kit (civilian), which they had left behind them under orders, will be compensated for such loss.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Men enlisted in this country were warned to take as little kit as possible, as railway transport could not be guaranteed. Many men, however, brought out large amounts. Surplus kit was stored at Cape town, at owner's risk, with private firms, and no liability for it was taken by the South African Constabulary. Compensation cannot, therefore, be allowed.

  Uganda Railway—Engineers' Commission.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the consulting engineer or engineers who were employed on the construction of the Uganda Railway by the Foreign Office, or the Uganda Railway Committee, were paid any sum or sums by way of commission on the total cost of the works, or on materials supplied for the construction of said railway; and, if so, who were the engineers who were so remunerated, and the total amount received by each of them.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to this Question is in the negative.

  Alien Immigration
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: To ask the President of the
  8
  Board of Trade whether he is aware that a number of foreign emigrants from this country have been rejected by the shipping companies in Liverpool, on the ground that they would be classed as undesirables under the United States Immigration Laws; and can he say how many of the persons so rejected remain in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the shipping companies in Liverpool that the number of foreign emigrants rejected by them during 1902 on the ground that they would have been classed as undesirables under the United States Immigration Laws was about twenty-five, and that the whole of these persons were sent back to the Continent at the companies' expense.

  Volunteer Resignations.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the figures of the Volunteer officers who have resigned their commissions since May, 1902, and also how many non-commissioned officers and men of the Volunteer force have retired during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of officers of the Volunteer force who have resigned since 1st May, 1902, is 713, compared with about 620 for twelve months in 1896–7 and 650 in 1897–8, when the establishment was 1,600 officers less. The number of noncommissioned officers and men can only be given between the 1st April, 1902, and 1st January, 1903, and amounts to 45,157, comparing with 52,000 for twelve months in 1897 and 1898. No further Returns will be received until next month.

INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  SECOND READING.

    Order for Second Reading read.
    *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid the Bill which he had the honour to introduce arose from an Amendment moved last session to the Licensing Bill by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, which provided that any person holding a licence for the.

    9
    consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises, who refused to supply a reasonable demand for refreshment, should be liable to a fine not exceeding 40s. for the first offence, and not exceeding £5 for the second offence. That Amendment was rejected in a full House by a majority of only nineteen votes, and its principle received a great deal of sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and many other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Derby. The hon. Members who favoured the principle of the Bill consulted together, and that consultation resulted in the drafting of the present Bill, which was printed, but could not have been introduced last year.
    MR. NOLANcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.
    A count having been taken—
    MR. SPEAKER: As only thirty-one Members are present, I will leave the Chair until a quorum is formed.
    A quorum having been formed
    *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONresuming, said the Bill was a small one, which did not propose a new law, but made it possible to enforce the present law. Under the common law, an innkeeper was obliged to provide accommodation and refreshment, and his hon. friend's Amendment would have extended that obligation to all holders of licences. It was, however, pointed out that licensed victuallers under the present law were not obliged to sell even intoxicating liquor; and hon. Members who opposed the Amendment last session pointed out that it was absurd to ask a man who was not obliged to sell anything at all, to sell an article he did not profess to sell. The promoters of the Bill saw the difficulty, and accepted the present Bill, which was limited to innkeepers, as a compromise, in the hope that it would have a moral effect which would be far-reaching. The difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler was somewhat subtle. An
    10
    innkeeper was described by an Act passed in 1863 as a keeper of an inn, but it had been subsequently held that an innkeeper was a man who "holds out" accommodation to travellers who were willing to pay an adequate price for it, provided also that if required they should tender payment in advance. Some doubt existed as to the meaning of the words "holds out," but he presumed that if a man said that he provided accommodation for man and beast, he was clearly an innkeeper, and might be compelled to provide refreshments. He should like to abolish the distinction between a licensed victualler and an innkeeper, because a tavern which was simply a place where liquor was sold and where drinkers were entertained, seemed to him to be unnecessary. A movement was now in progress which had very high support, and which certainly had his sympathy, not to take drink between meals. He certainly should never think of taking drink between meals. But the Bill was not brought in in the interests of people who only wanted tea and bread and butter. There was a great improvement in late years in the small inns throughout the country, which was mainly due to cyclists. When he had to travel about the country on Committees of the County Council, he frequently stopped at a small inn when he wanted something to eat; and he believed nothing would tend more to sobriety than if they made licensed victuallers victuallers in fact as well as in name. A great many people took two, three, and four glasses of beer, when, if they could have bread and cheese also, they would only take one glass.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that the arguments in favour of the Amendment were largely drawn from personal experiences, and that, although such experiences were exceedingly valuable, an alteration of the law based on them would not be desirable in the present instance. He remembered when his hon. friend the Member for Flint, whom they were all glad to see in the House again, brought forward a measure with reference to theatres, he was told he ought not to speak about them, because he had not any personal experience, and, therefore, it was difficult to

    11
    please everyone. The licence of an innkeeper could, of course, be opposed for not supplying refreshments; but he did not think that magistrates would be justified in refusing a licence on that ground. An innkeeper could also be proceeded against by indictment, or he could be sued for damages; but both were very cumbrous methods. The Bill before the House would provide a simple and expeditious means of carrying out the present law. It was not at present proposed to apply the Bill to Scotland or Ireland, as they did not know whether it was wanted there; but if the Scottish or Irish Members manifested a unanimous desire to have Scotland or Ireland included, he did not think the promoters of the Bill would have any objection.
    He wished to impress on the House that the Bill was not intended to bully or coerce innkeepers. It only proposed to stimulate them to meet the demand which had arisen, and which he believed they were in most cases ready to meet. Even the debate last session did a great deal of good. He himself on that occasion alluded to the refreshment-room at Ipswich, which had been turned into a regular drinking-shop, where no food was to be had unless after ordering it and waiting for it. He did not know whether his speech had been reported in the local papers, but he was glad to be able to state that food was now always obtainable there. An hon. Member said in the debate last session that he had never been in the refreshment-room where he was not able to get a good sandwich. Some refreshment-rooms were very fair, but generally the refreshment-rooms in this country were very inferior to the refreshment-rooms abroad. They quite agreed that if this Bill were allowed to pass there would be less intoxicating liquor consumed, but even if that were so, the innkeeper would make it up in other ways, and he thought if this Bill were allowed a Second Reading it would do more for temperance and sobriety than the coercive measures which were sometimes advocated. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time.
    Sir Brampton Gurdon.
    MR. BEOADHURST: In seconding the Motion said he had only a very few words to add. The Bill was so narrow and affected such small interests that he did not think there was any reason to occupy the time of the House. The Bill was in no sense a temperance measure. Its only object was that young men and women on their holidays through country lanes should be accommodated, if they so wished, to a cup of tea and a slice of bread and butter and an egg, to help them on their journey. If they preferred beer or whisky it would be at their disposal. Cyclists as was well known were in many cases comparatively poor people, who would never see the country except for the use of those wonderful machines. The Bill did not interfere with any rights and privileges of the trade, it only gave people power to assert their right in a particular class of licensed house to have what they required, and that class of house was a class which was compelled by law to give all kinds of refreshments to properly qualified persons. That being so, he appealed to those who took a strong line on the licensing question not to stand in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill, and so defeat for another long period the privileges many thousands of people desired to have.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second. time."
    MAJOR JAMESONsaid he had listened with some attention to the earnest appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, and, so far as he was concerned, would be the last man in the world to interfere with his hon. friend having his cup of tea and slice of bread and butter, and his egg, or even a rasher of bacon and a pot of marmalade. But while he sympathised with his hon. friend, he was of opinion that it was necessary that this Bill should be well considered and thought out before the House allowed it to pass a Second Reading. As he had said, he had no desire to interfere with the comfort and welfare of his hon. friend, nor did he desire to inconvenience the hon. Baronet

    13
    who had moved the Second Reading, but it appeared to him that this Bill was brought in simply because on one occasion the hon. Baronet had lost his lunch at Ipswich. It was preposterous and offensive to the House that its time should be occupied for hours on a Bill of this kind for such a reason. He thought before he had finished he would show the House that this Bill was absolutely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary but in absolute contravention to the present law of the land, because under the present law every innkeeper supplied the demands of every traveller. Already there was an endeavour to fix what a bond fide traveller really was, and was the House to allow an hon. Member to come to the House with a Bill of this character and define by it what a traveller was and what he was to be supplied with? He thought it was only right to tell the House that a similar Bill was passed some years ago in South Africa, and it led to the most grievous and disastrous consequences. There was a South African millionaire of, he believed, the German Jewish persuasion, who ordered, in a perfectly innocent way, drink without the accompanying luncheon, as provided by the Bill. He was taken before the Courts and charged with contravening the provisions of the Act. When the judge was about to condemn him, the South African German Jewish millionaire turned to his Lordship and said "Sir, there was nothing but pork to eat, and I prefer to keep the law of Moses than the law of the land." With that touching spectacle of the South African millionaire before them, they were asked to agree to a similar Bill which would act very hardly on people of different religions.
    The hon. Gentleman had told them that the provisions of this Act should not apply to a traveller when he was intoxicated. He quite agreed with the hon. Member in that view, but having stated that reasonable provision the hon. Gentleman went on to say "or for any other cause whatsoever." That alone demonstrated that the Bill, which had been brought in a very unfinished state would give rise to every sort of complication. The hon. Member had referred to the Licensing Act of 1902 and had mentioned the
    14
    word "innkeeper," but he did not define the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler. Section 9 of the Act of 1902 set forth in a very clear form that on a conviction before the Court it should be the duty of the Clerk to the Justices to enter notice of such conviction. The hon. Member must confess that his Bill must fall short of what was necessary, because it did not explain the definition of an innkeeper, or the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler, and this Bill was only applicable to one of them. He was sure that not even one of the teetotal party of the House desired to go back on the solemn compact of last year or to do anything in contravention of the Licensing Act of 1902. Then the hon. Gentleman had cited an Act as old as Methuselah, and entitled the Innkeepers Act of 1863. He (Major Jameson) was only ten years old at the time and had no recollection of that measure, and he did not anticipate that more than two or three other hon. Members would be better informed of its provisions than himself. The House would certainly take the view that the hon. Member was taking a very unfair advantage in citing that Act, because, whilst he thus imposed fresh liabilities on the innkeeper, the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to take away any of the old liabilities under that measure.
    The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to quote at length from the 1863 Act, when—
    *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER ruled him out of order, observing that his comments on that Act were quite irrelevant to the Bill before the House, which merely adapted from the Act of 1863 an interpretation of the word "innkeeper."
    MAJOR JAMESON MAJOR JAMESON bowed to the Speaker's ruling, but contended that it was very difficult to deal with the items of the Bill when neither the proposer nor the seconder could give any definition of the word innkeeper. He had desired to refer to another Act, passed in the year 1828, before their grandfathers had gone into business, and if he had been in order would have shown the House the bearing of that Act on the present Bill. He appealed with the utmost confidence to the House not to allow a Bill of this

    15
    kind to be brought before it without any opportunity being given hon. Members to consider it, and begged to move.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE, the greater part of whose speech was inaudible in the press gallery, seconded the Amendment. He said that the term "innkeeper" had a broader meaning than was usually attached to it, in that it applied to any place of refreshment, and he contended that it was hardly fair that all such persons should be compelled to provide board and lodging to any traveller who might happen to be in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the term "refreshment" was very vague, and ought to be better defined. "Licensed person," embraced every individual who held any form of licence whatever, so persons who held off-licences or licences for the sale of wines and spirits in bottles, would be compelled to supply refreshments. The hon. Member was quoting from various Acts of Parliament in support of his rendering of the meaning of the different terms, when—
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether the hon. Member, by quoting Acts of Parliament, was not contravening the ruling already given from the Chair.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I was unable to hear what the hon. Member was saying.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE MR. PATRICK WHITE said he was endeavouirng to show how a licensed person was defined by Act of Parliament. The hon. Member proceeded again to quote from various Acts.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going too far. It is a very simple matter. Clause 7 defines the term, "licensed victualler," by reference to a previous Act, and the hon. Member is entitled to comment on the definition there referred to, but further than that he cannot go.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE MR. PATRICK WHITE said the Bill proposed to penalise licensed persons for not doing that which a previous Act declared to be illegal. These matters showed that the persons responsible for the drafting of this Bill had not sufficiently considered its effects. Their object was no doubt a laudable one, but the Bill violated
    16
    licensing statutes of previous years, and for that reason the House should reject it. The Bill also provided that persons convicted of the slightest infringement of its provisions should be subjected to the severe penalties provided for in the Act of 1902, and he would mention the offences with which that Act was intended to deal and compare them with the trifling matters for which the same punishment would be inflicted under the Bill before the House. He thought the House would agree that the Clause he had alluded to would be a very serious punishment under what was called this harmless Bill. The hon. Member was proceeding to quote other sections from the Act, when—
    *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER intervened and said: This is a Second Reading Debate. I will not say that these arguments might not be legitimate on the Committee stage of the Bill, when these clauses are under consideration. The hon. Member will not be out of order in referring generally to his objection that this Bill is inflicting a severe penalty as compared with the previous Acts; but by reading these numerous sections from previous Acts with reference to a mere detail he is doing something which is quite contrary to the practice of the House. I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to the main Question.
    MR. PATRICK WHITE MR. PATRICK WHITE thought this Bill would harass innkeepers and others. There were a large number of people who kept restaurants and tea or coffee rooms, and who retired from their businesses at eight or nine o'clock at night; but under this Bill any traveller would be entitled to demand board, lodgings or refreshments. He thought it was hardly reasonable to impose such an obligation on them. Under the section to which the hon. Member had referred, a man might demand board and lodgings from people who knew nothing about him, and it would enable bad characters to get inside places in order to find out their construction and to facilitate, later on perhaps, the robbing of the house or the owners. He did not think that such legislation should be passed by the House of Commons. No doubt the promoters were honest in their efforts, but

    17
    the Bill before them was coercive and restrictive, and penalised a very important and responsible trade in this country. Innkeepers and hotel people were not so inhuman as to deprive any one of facilities for obtaining lodgings or refreshments, and scarcely any cases of hardship had been made out in the discussion. He submitted that before this Bill was passed, instances should be adduced and examples given where the present law was unsatisfactory. This was an attempt at legislation which was not necessary to meet the requirements of the case, and there was no volume of public opinion asking for the measure except perhaps a few gentlemen who were anxious to promote the cause of temperance by supplying tea and sandwiches where they were not now supplied. The present Bill was contrary to the spirit of every Act which had gone before it, and evidently its promoters had not studied the full effect of the measure which they had introduced; for that reason he hoped the House would show a sense of their disapproval of this Bill by voting against it. If next session they introduced a Bill on different lines, without having this coercive and restrictive tendency, no one would be more ready to support them than himself. He thought it ought to be made compulsory on innkeepers to supply necessary refreshments, whether at a public refreshment room, hotel, or an inn, or otherwise. The present Bill did not achieve this, and it was a very feeble attempt to upset the present law without putting anything in its stead that would be of any use to the public.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months."—(Major Jameson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE, Ayrshire, N.)said he should not follow the hon. Member for Meath in his meanderings through several Acts of Parliament. This Bill did not define what was meant by "traveller" and the definition of "innkeeper" appeared to be that very elementary one that an innkeeper was the keeper of an inn. The hon. Member
    18
    had read part of the section giving the definition of an "inn" as meaning any hotel, inn, tavern, public-house or other place of refreshment, but he did not call attention to the qualifying words—
    "The keeper of which is now by law responsible for the goods and property of his guests,"
    these words considerably limiting the scope of the definition. The hon. Member for Clare said the hon. Member for North Norfolk wished to promote this Bill because he did not succeed in getting a luncheon at Ipswich, but he hoped that the ventilation of this subject in the House would make innkeepers realise that it was highly desirable they should supply refreshments of a reasonable kind when they were asked for. What was the reason given? There had been instances given—not in this debate possibly, but in a debate which took place previously, where many instances were brought before the notice of the House—of country districts where a large body of their fellow countrymen who took pleasure in riding bicycles went to these various inns, and had been refused reasonable refreshments of a temperance character, although they had been offered a glass of beer. It seemed to him that this was a grievance, and in their own interests it would be wise for the innkeepers to supply reasonable refreshments.
    If the proprietors of the village inns woke up to the necessities of the case, and provided reasonably clean and comfortable accommodation, he thought they would find their trade, instead of falling off, rapidly increase. The grievance undoubtedly was that they did not supply such refreshments as were wanted. There had been complaints that they did not supply the accommodation which the public desired. What had been the remedy in the past? The remedies had been of a very cumbrous nature; that was to say, it had been necessary to proceed by indictment, or to lay a complaint at the Brewster Sessions against the holder of the licence. Both of these forms of proceeding were very cumbrous. The Brewster Sessions were not held often, and the only remedy they could apply was of too drastic a nature. It would involve the loss of the licence if the innkeeper refused to give such reasonable

    19
    accommodation as he was bound by law to give. He stated the law with the greatest diffidence in presence of his right hon. friend, but he thought no one could dispute that at Common Law a man who kept an inn was bound, if he had accommodation, to receive and provide food for a traveller, and that he might be indicted or be liable to an action if he refused to receive a traveller when he had accommodation and could make no reasonable excuse. It appeared to him that the best remedy would be to inflict a penalty on summary conviction, instead of by the more cumbrous methods he had indicated. Whether the penalty was too severe or not he did not venture to offer an opinion. He might say, generally speaking for the Department, that they did not oppose this Bill, but undoubtedly it would require, at a future stage, very considerable alterations to bring it into harmony with the views of the Government.
    MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he was glad to hear that the Government did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He was sure that it was very acceptable that such a measure as this should be sent for consideration by the Grand Committee on Law. The hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said he had no objection, and it had occurred to him that it might be possible to obtain something of a similar nature introduced into the Licensing Bill for Scotland which the Lord Advocate introduced last Wednesday. He did not know whether it would he better to have a clause in the Licensing Bill, or that the Bill now before the House should be made applicable to Scotland. Ipswich was not the only place where people could not get lunch without having something to drink. He knew that Americans who came to Ayrshire to see the haunts of Burns were very much surprised on visiting "Poosie Nansie's" that they could not get a biscuit to eat without getting at the same time a glass of whiskey.
    ME. GRETTONsaid he was advised that the Bill made no real alteration in the law as it
    20
    stood. The object of the Bill was to make the law easier of application. In past times there had been considerable difficulty in obtaining refreshments in remote parts of the country. This grievance had been a standing one of the Cyclists' Union for a long time. He thought he might say that of recent years the difficulty had very considerably diminished, and that there would be great difficulty now in finding cases in any part of the country where reasonable refreshments could not be obtained, or where it would be refused to any one asking for it reasonably. On behalf of the trade with which he was connected he might say that they had no reason to oppose the Bill. They agreed with the principle of it, and so far as they had been able to bring their influence to bear they had already been trying to carry out what was now proposed. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government suggested that the Bill would require some alteration in detail in order to make its provisions easier of application. He might say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they would be happy to accept Amendments to make the Bill more workable.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)expressed his entire agreement with the hon. Member who had just spoken in what he had said as to this Bill not really altering the substance of the law as it at present stood. With the general object in view on the part of the promoters, he thought everyone would be in entire sympathy. It was most desirable that people going about the country should be able to get such refreshments as they wanted, and not only intoxicating liquors. He was glad to know that the habit was spreading of providing such refreshments for those who desired them, and he believed personally, that the great security for what was right in this matter being done, was that publicans would find it to be to their interest to meet the wishes of persons who were travelling, and that the self-interest of those engaged in the trade would lead them to discover that the wise and proper thing was to provide such refreshments as were wanted. With regard to the scope of the Bill, he thought

    21
    he ought to point out that it was a great deal more limited than many hon. Members seemed to think. It applied only to England, and the definition in the last clause had, he thought, the effect of limiting the application of the Bill merely to inns properly so-called, that was to say, to establishments where lodging as well as refreshments was provided for travellers.
    MR. BROADHURST: That is the intention of the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY SIR ROBERT FINLAY was afraid that all the hon. Members who had spoken on the Rill thought that that was not the intention of the Bill. Of course, what was desired was that those who were going about the country for health or recreation should find suitable refreshment at every place where it could naturally be expected, and one would be very glad indeed that they should have such refreshments at public-houses, as well as at inns properly so-called, that was to say where lodging was provided. At the same time the promoters of the Bill very properly did not propose to apply any compulsion with regard to the keepers of such houses who were not innkeepers in the legal sense of the term, because they realised that, after all, they were in the position of ordinary shopkeepers who carried on their trade as they pleased, subject to the licensing law. it was their interest to meet the wishes of their customers. With regard to innkeepers proper, he understood that it was the object of the Bill to apply a slight spice of compulsion. The whole point of the question was in the application of the Bill to what was known as an inn. It had been held that if an innkeeper did not profess to receive everyone, and did not hold himself out as a general innkeeper, he was not subject to the liabilities of the law. Then a question arose as to who were travellers. Everyone was supposed to know, but he thought very few did know, what a bond fide traveller was. The whole point of this Bill was in the clause providing penalties, and that was the real matter that would require consideration when the Bill went before the Committee. There was, of course, always the danger—no one could speak with authority on this point—that if
    22
    they provided penalties, a weapon of that kind might be used vexatiously. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a case in which an innkeeper was adjudged guilty of an offence against the law for refusing to serve a man who was accompanied by a dog. When the case came before the court, evidence was given as to the character of the dog, and the animal did not come out of the examination altogether scatheless, He instanced that case to show that there were occasionally very unreasonable people who came in contact with innkeepers.
    *MR. HEMPHILLsaid it appeared to him from what had fallen from the speakers who had preceded, that the Bill was only declaratory of the common law. As his right hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said, it had been decided that the obligation on an innkeeper did not apply to an ordinary restaurant keeper nor to a publican, and he ventured to say that it did not apply to the keeper of a railway refreshment-room either. The main feature of the Bill, which would require to be very closely watched in Committee, was Section 4, which provided that whenever a licensed person was convicted of an offence under this Act, the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1902 in regard to the endorsement of the licence with a conviction under it should apply. That was a very drastic penalty for an innkeeper refusing to supply, say, a cup of tea or coffee. At the same time he thought that one of the greatest incentives to temperance would be that every licensed victualler should be bound to supply tea or coffee at the request of those who entered his house. Such a provision would go further to promote, the cause of temperance than any penal. legislation Parliament could pass; and as. this Bill went in that direction, though not the whole way, he would give the Second Reading his support.
    *MR. NANNETTIsaid that this Bill did not apply to Ireland, but he thought it should receive the support of every Member of the House. Everything which would, encourage our young boys and girls to go into the country for fresh air and healthy

    23
    recreation ought to be encouraged, and there was nothing in the Bill to which any respectable innkeeper should object. The first sub-Section said that an innkeeper must supply the reasonable demand of every traveller, and he took it that tea and coffee and food should be included. Speaking as practically a temperance man, he urged that the innkeeper should be obliged to supply him, if he wanted it, with a glass of beer, which he rather liked, or a half-of-whiskey if he so desired it. He spoke from that which had come under his own observation in this regard. There were numbers of cycling clubs in the big cities, the members of which took a run of forty or fifty miles into the country on a Sunday. If a cyclist had his tyre punctured and was unable to get on, why should that unfortunate individual be compelled to travel all night, pushing his bicycle in front of him, without the right to ask from an innkeeper reasonable accommodation? It should be the duty of the innkeeper to supply the unhappy cyclist with a succulent steak, a rasher of bacon, or eggs, tea, and marmalade, or accommodation for the night if necessary. That that should not be the case at the present moment was a crying evil; and if the Bill were passed he believed that there would be less drunkenness in the country at the present time. Of course there was no idea when it was asked that in an inn accommodation should be provided for man and beast, that that included a pack of hounds; but reasonable refreshment was what was asked for the traveller or cyclist. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for North Meath that there were several anomalies in the Bill, but these could be remedied in Committee.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) expressed the hope that the division would now be taken, if a division were necessary. He knew nothing of the merits of the Bill, but it was sufficient for him that it had the support of hon. Gentlemen like the Member for
    Leicester, who had always been an exceeding good friend to Ireland, and who deserved to have as much help as they could, give him. He was not going to start the session by being ruled out of order if he could help it, and therefore he would not attempt to discuss the Home Rule aspect of the question; but as long as the Irish Members were in that House Ireland should have a fair, square, and legitimate portion of the time of the House. Yet they found that an English Bill of only thirty-five lines had occupied two hours of the time of the House—which he thought was quite enough—while a Bill deeply affecting Ireland was waiting for consideration. He thought the House should either pass the Second Reading of this Bill at once or reject it, and go on to the consideration of other matters of great importance which aroused a great deal of interest on all sides of the House.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNORagreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that they ought to come very soon to a division. He supported this Bill because he had had very considerable experience of cycling in the southern counties of England, and had on many occasions suffered exceedingly from inability to get such refreshment as he required—even his favourite soda and milk. There were some proposals in the Bill which would have to be considered, but he would suggest that the proper time for that would be in Committee. For instance, an innkeeper should not be permitted to supply board and lodging which a traveller could not accept. There should be some penalty to meet that. As he had said, he would vote for the Bill; and as he was anxious that a division should be taken as soon as possible he would not say anything further.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 16. (Division List No. 17.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Boland, John

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Brand, Hon. Arthur, G.

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Bell, Richard

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bignold, Arthur

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Caine, William Sproston

    Caldwell, James

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cameron, Robert

    Lawson, John Grant

    Rose, Charles Day

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Russell, T. W.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Levy, Maurice

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

    Corbett, A Cameron (Glasg.)

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Crean, Eugena

    Lundon, W.

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Crombie, John William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    M'Kean, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Delany, William

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Denny, Colonel

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Doogan, P. C

    Murphy, John

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

    Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Straehey, Sir Edward

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sullivan Donal

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'raryMid)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

    Thomson, E. W. (York W. R.)

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.

    O'Mara, James

    Vineent, Col. Sir C. E.H. (Sheffield)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wallace, Robert

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Platt-Higgies, Frederick

    Wason Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Hammond, John

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Rankin, Sir James

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Wood, James

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Jacoby. James Alfred

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Renwick, George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Joyce, Michael

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

    Brampton Gurdon and Mr.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Gretton.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    NOES.

    Austin, Sir John

    Milvain, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Mooney, John J.

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cullinan, J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Duffy, William J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOB THE NOES-

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Dowd, John

    Major Jameson and Mr.

    Greene, Hn. D. (Shrewsbury)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Patrick White.

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Purvis, Robert

    Bill read a second time.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."—(Sir Brampton Gurdon.)
    MAJOR JAMESON MAJOR JAMESON said he objected. The Bill was only a few hours under discussion, and should be considered by
    a Committee of the whole House; that was the usual course. Many hon. Members had voted for the Second Reading because they thought the Bill would be amended in Committee, and he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should have made such a Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 118 Noes, 13. (Division List No. 18.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bell, Richard

    Caldwell, James

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Cameron, Robert

    Arrol, Sir William

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Boland, John

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Austin, Sir John

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Caine, William Sproston

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Craig, CharlesCurtis (Antrim, S.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Runciman, Walter

    Crean, Eugene

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Russell, T. W.

    Crumbie, John William

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Samuel, Harry, S. (Limehouse)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Denny, Colonel

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Mooney, John J.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Ffrench, Peter

    Murphy, John

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

    Flower, Ernest

    Nicol, Donald Niman

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthtyr)

    Gretton, John

    O'Mara, James

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Hammond, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Purvis, Robert

    Wallace, Robert

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rankin, Sir James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Jacoby. James Alfred

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Joyce, Michael

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Wood, James

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Renwick, George

    Lawson, John Grant

    Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrinqton)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Sir Brampton Gurdon and

    Leigh. Sir Joseph

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Mr. Broadhurst.

    Levy, Maurice

    Rose, Charles Day

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

    Cullinan, J.

    O'Dowd, John

    Major Jameson and Mr.

    Duffy, William J.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Patrick White.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SATURDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order for Second Beading read.
    MR. SLOAN, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said he should not take up much of the time of the House in pointing out the absolute necessity for the Measure. In the year 1888 the subject of early closing of licensed houses was referred to a Select Committee of that House, and again in 1896 a Royal Commission inquired into the question, and both bodies recommended and reported that there was an absolute necessity, in the interest of the people, for closing licensed houses on Saturday evenings at nine o'clock instead of eleven. This was intended to apply to the towns and cities of
    28
    Ireland, and particularly for the benefit and advantage of the wives and children of the ordinary working men, who were addicted to drinking on Saturday nights. In the working man's home there was little to attract him or meet his desires during his hours of leisure. But there were outside, in the streets of the towns and cities, gin palaces, saloons, and bars erected at enormous expenditure; the working man visited such places and partook of their grog and liquors, and they all knew the result that often followed. The keeper of one of these places said to him once that he did not invite people to come into his house, but when they did they were supplied with what they asked for, and if they took more than was good for them, well, more was the pity. He did not take this view at all. His

    29
    argument was this. The gin palaces were kept open for the people, and so people came in to partake of drink. It was true that the people were not actually invited to come in, any more than rats and mice and other creatures were invited to enter the traps and cages prepared for them, but there was no doubt that the licensed houses were purposely kept open.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Does the baker not do the same thing—keep open his shop?
    MR. SLOAN: The baker is a strict necessity—the publican is not. His house was now made interesting and pleasant with phonographs and gramophones; and some of the most beautiful young women in the land were employed as barmaids. He held that if men could be made to drink to excess by legislation they could be made sober by legislation, By shortening the hours on Saturday nights there would be fewer hours in which drink could be consumed. He was not intending to say for a moment that because a man went into a public house occasionally he was not leading a respectable life; but when a man showed the weakness and want of will power which allowed drink to overcome him, and neglected the duties of his home life, he (Mr. Sloan) thought that the reduction of the hours of keeping open on the Saturday night was highly desirable, and should be enacted. He had seen cases of intoxication in the streets of Belfast at eleven o'clock at night, the children standing by the father and the mother crying on the other side of him. In certain parts of Belfast, after eleven o'clock on Saturday nights, the hairdressers, and some of their young men not only had to work into the small hours of Sun day morning, in order to make those who had been drinking respectable, but had to open again for the same purpose for an hour or two later in the day. If there was one argument more than another he desired to lay stress upon it was that the public, independent of class or creed, demanded that these houses should be closed earlier. Mr. Sloan proceeded to read extracts from the evidence given before a Select Committee on the ques-
    30
    tion in 1888. On that occasion the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary said—
    "It is patent to everyone that on Saturday night there is more drinking than on any other night of the week, because men are generally paid their wages on Saturdays, and though intending to spend them only in making proper purchases, they very often spend their money foolishly."
    The General Inspector of Belfast said—
    "I think you will find no persons in Belfast, with the exception of a very few, not even excepting the publicans themselves, who would object to an early hour of closing on Saturdays I think nine o'clock is a fairly reasonable and very moderate hour."
    The Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police said—
    "I know the Roman Catholic clergy are strongly in favour of closing early on Saturday night."
    Mr. Charles Joseph O'Donnell, a former Chief Inspector of Dublin, said—
    "I think it would be a very good thing to say that the public houses shall be closed now at ten o'clock, and then to give fair warning that at the end of a certain period they will be closed at an earlier hour."
    Mr. W. Davis, a former District Inspector of Belfast, said—
    "If the public houses were closed at nine o'clock on Saturday nights a great portion of the drinking would be done away with. As the hour gets late the number of arrests becomes larger."
    Showing that there were a larger number of arrests by the police on Saturday night, through late drinking, than on any other night of the week.
    MR. REDDY: What does the Inspector say about the Custom House steps? [Cries of "Order."]
    MR. SLOAN MR. SLOAN, in continuing to review the evidence given by the Committee, mentioned the declaration of Mr. Fitzgerald Dixon, the District Inspector of Sligo, that the great bulk of the arrests and convictions in Sligo were on Saturday nights, and he suggested the closing of the public-houses at nine o'clock on that day. The Mayor of Cork said:—
    "If you would give me a chance to-morrow to say whether I would have Saturday or Sunday closing, I would say Saturday night closing, as a greater evil than the whole of the opening on Sunday."

    31
    There was no question that, alike in Belfast and the rest of Ireland, public feeling was growing in the direction of earlier closing on Saturday nights. He had had the privilege of mixing with many working-men who took a glass of beer, and they assured him that they were anxious that they should at least be able to go through the streets of our cities and towns at ten or eleven on Saturday nights, without being subjected to such visions of drunkenness and rascality as were very often to be seen. He suggested that hon. Members should endeavour to consider this matter impartially, and that when they spoke they should try as far as possible to speak in the interests of those whom they ought to represent. He knew the Bill was a blow at the Trade. It must, however, be remembered that there were any number of individuals in our workhouses to-day through the scourge of drink, and any number of individuals in our asylums and prisons for the same reason. If, therefore, the Bill was going to injure the Trade it must be remembered that the Trade had long enough injured the community.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It was not the drink that brought me to prison, any way.
    MR. SLOAN MR. SLOAN, continuing, said he had considered as far as possible all the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1888, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1896,andtheyshouldendeavouratIeastto give some consideration to those recommendations in the interests of the sobriety of the country, and of those who were undoubtedly subjected to great annoyance by the late hours the public houses remained open on Saturday nights. Not only did the public houses keep open till eleven o'clock, but they kept the individuals employed in them till twelve or one o'clock in consequence, those individuals being engaged in making the necessary preparations for the Sunday opening. From a Trades Union point of view, therefore, as well as from the better housing point of view—for the money spent in drink would go a long way to alleviate the trouble caused by the existing housing
    32
    difficulty—there ought to be a shortening of public-house hours. He had no feeling of antipathy against any man connected with the Trade. He was a temperance man by conviction, and it was admitted, even by those engaged in the Trade, that temperance was best. Under those circumstances, he thought the Committee could not do better than accept the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1888 and the Royal Commission of 1896, and he asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYfailed to understand what weighty-objections there could be to the Bill. So far back as 1888 a Select Committee of that House approved the terms contained in this Bill, and reported that in their opinion a great deal of excessive drunkenness, which had been proved to have taken place on Saturday night, would be avoided by the earlier closing of public houses on that day. They further reported that they were satisfied that such a measure would be supported by public opinion generally throughout Ireland. The Committee recommended among other things that all houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors should be closed at 9 p.m. on Saturdays. Then, in 1890, the Royal Commission on Licensing, under the presidency of Lord Peel, unanimously reported in favour of having public-houses closed at nine o'clock on Saturdays. In 1897 a memorial was presented to the then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland asking him to use his influence with the Government of the day to have this Bill passed into law. That memorial was signed by sixteen Roman Catholic Bishops, thirteen Protestant Bishops, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Synod, the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, fifteen of the nobility, twenty-one Members of Parliament, 1,036 clergymen, 1,018 magistrates, 291 doctors, 207 poor law guardians and town commissioners, and 1,117 merchants and employers. It was also signed at twenty seven large public meetings of temperance bodies, and by many thousands of people in Ireland. He ventured to say that since that memorial was presented public opinion had become greatly in favour of this Bill. It had the approval and support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy

    33
    and clergymen of Ireland, and, so far as he was aware, the only party in Ireland who protested against it was the Association of Licensed Grocers and Vintners.
    As compared with the present law, the Bill only gave two hours earlier for closing than usual, for one night in the week, in the cities and large towns, and one hour earlier in towns with a population of less than 5,000, and in rural districts. Was that too much of a concession to ask the Trade to make on behalf of the public good? He held that an incalculable amount of good would be accomplished by the closing of licensed premises at that time, chiefly because of the surrounding circumstances. It was during the last hours that the temptations were the strongest. After the labours of the week the working man had his earnings in his pocket, and at the close of his evening meal he would take a walk. Perhaps he would meet a fellow worker and ask him to have a drink, and with the system of treating, as every one knew, the result was that both men would stay in the public-house until a late hour, probably until closing time. They would then go home muddled and intoxicated, not thinking or caring about the morrow, and quite regardless of the duty they owed to their religion and their country. In that way they spent money which was wanted for food and clothing by their wives and families. It was with the object of lessening the temptations that beset these poor people that this Bill was introduced. The Bishop of Limerick was asked to attend a meeting held under the auspices of the Irish Association for the Prevention of Intemperance in Dublin, last February, and in a letter of regret at not being able to attend, his Lordship said he was convinced of the immense amount of good the Bill would effect at a minimum of loss and inconvenience, and it would be regarded as a very great blessing by an overwhelming majority of the population. Throughout last year and the early part of the present year meetings were held under the auspices of that Association, and resolutions were passed thereat in favour of the Bill.
    It might be argued by members of the Trade that if public-houses were
    34
    closed earlier on Saturday nights' men would resort to clubs and shebeens for drink. With that view he did not agree, and he did not think it could be said of the great majority of Irish people. As a rule they did not drink for the love of drink, although, of course, there were drinkers of the type who in England would be on the black list. Let them judge the Bill on its merits, and on its merits alone. If men went into shebeens they violated the law, and it was the duty of the authorities to cope with the evil. If they resorted to clubs and drank to excess, the sooner steps were taken to regulate clubs, as was done in England, the better it would be for the country. Another reason why the Bill should become law was, that it would give a much needed test to the bartenders, who were on their feet from early morning until late at night, and worked harder than those employed in any other business. A further argument used against the Bill was that, as grocery and spirit businesses were so mixed up in Ireland, it would be unfair to close the public-houses at nine o'clock. In answer to that argument he held that it ought not to be impossible to separate one business from the other. Public good should be placed before private interests. In all reforms it happened that a certain class was inconvenienced, bu in this case, owing to the widespread development of the Saturday half holiday, housewives had not to wait until night to do their shopping. These were the reasons why he supported the Bill. He did so from purely patriotic motives. He saw his country drained of its wealth yearly. Between thirteen and fourteen millions were spent on drink in Ireland every year. He had seen young men of ability of respectable parents go down in the battle of life owing to the cursed vice of drunkenness, and, knowing those facts, he would do all he could to further the cause of a Temperance Bill. He believed that a sober Ireland meant an industrial Ireland, in which men of brains and strong and brawny arms, would devote their intellect and strength in promoting the prosperity of their country, and striving for its regeneration. He supported the Bill because it would do something in that direction by re-

    35
    moving the temptation, to which working men were at present exposed, to stay in the public-house drinking and carousing until a late hour on Saturday nights, when their proper place was in their homes.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    *MR. NANNETTI, in moving "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months," said he was satisfied that his hon. friends had not grasped the difficulties surrounding this subject, as they had not the experience of Members who lived in the cities, and who knew what the result of passing such a Bill would be. The report of the Inquiry of 1888, to which allusion had been made, was framed, not by Irish Members, but very largely by Members representing England. Why, therefore, if there was cause for complaining of over-drinking on the part of the working classes, did they not first endeavour to make the Bill applicable to their own country? He defied anybody to propose such a measure for England; the English people would not stand it for twenty-four hours; and he strongly objected to Ireland being made the ground for such an experiment. It was an insult to Ireland, as it declared us to be a drunken people. The Bill was not backed by public opinion, and, if passed, would simply result in greater injury, immorality, and drunkenness. If its promoters had taken advantage of their opportunity to introduce proposals for extending to Ireland the Acts for dealing with habitual drunkards and clubs, they would have met with much sympathy and support, but instead of that they had chosen to bring in a Bill which was strongly opposed in the country. What they had to complain of in Ireland were the bogus clubs and shebeens, and if the hon. Member had first dealt with those, he might then have some claim to propose this further measure. Living in a city he knew what happened after eleven o'clock at night when the respectable houses closed. It was then that the bogus clubs reaped their harvest. Men stayed in them all night, then went home for an hour or two, and returned
    36
    to stay the remainder of the day. That was why on the Monday morning employers of labour, overseers and managers, had such difficulty in getting their men to work. He was as anxious as anyone to see a sober Ireland; he knew the terrible effects of drunkenness; but, with his knowledge of what the result of its provisions would be, he could not support such a measure as that before the House. It was true, as had been stated, that the drink-seller did not compel people to enter his establishment. But it was far better to have a respectable public-house, to which a man might go if he wished, or take a friend whom he had met, where he could obtain good drink, without the risk of being poisoned by the stuff served at some of the places to which he might otherwise be driven. The Bill was supposed to be one dealing with the liquor traffic, hut in the country places in Ireland the groser at whose establishment the liquor was sold, was frequently the butcher, baker, tea seller, and draper; therefore, if he had to close early on Saturday night all these other commodities would be affected. Even though a sacrifice were made for the public good, as the hon. Member for Limerick suggested, by the making of structural alterations to divide the one part of the business from the other, it should be remembered there was a re-valuation question in Ireland, and every structural alteration would have to be re-valued and much hardship thereby inflicted. He claimed to be fortified in his attitude on this matter by the working men of Dublin. When President of the Trades Council of that city he was sent to give evidence before the Parliamentary Committee, with a mandate to protest against Sunday and early Saturday night closing. It would not be correct to say there was not a section of the community in favour of the Bill. There was, for instance, the class of people who attended the Rotunda meeting to which reference had been made, but they were the people who would not allow a man to have a glass of beer at all, and such, he thought, were not the people to deal with a question of this kind. The only meeting of a public nature that had been held in connection with the matter was one

    37
    of working men of Dublin in Phoenix Park, at which resolutions strongly condemning the proposal were passed.
    ME. T. W. RUSSELLasked when that meeting was held.
    *MR. NANNETTI*MR. NANNETTI said it was held some ten years ago, but until another was held and the decision reversed the resolutions stood.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL said another meeting was held on the very same day.
    *MR. NANNETTI, continuing, said that not only did the hon. Member for West Limerick not represent the majority of the Irish Members on this question, but he doubted whether he represented his own constituency. He, on the other hand, was supported by the Chief Magistrate of the City of Dublin, and the other members for the City and county, two of whom were teetotalers. It was an insult to the people of Ireland to suggest that such legislation was required to make them sober; it was coercion, pure and simple. He denied that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of the Bill. There had been twenty-seven meetings of magistrates held in the cause of temperance, and, with the exception of two, there was no allusion to Saturday closing. The two exceptions were Derry and Galway, and it should be remembered that in Galway the houses already had to close early. If the Bill were passed, people who had money in their pockets and desired drink would be compelled to take bottles home, where the wives and children would probably then have a share, while others would go to the clubs and shebeens. The late Mr. Parnell had spoken very strongly against the principle of the measure, and his opinion ought surely to have some weight with the Members of the Irish Nationalist Party. Mr. Parnell, in his speech at the time a similar Bill was before the House, said on the question of the experiment being made in Ireland of licensing legislation that—
    "The Bill will come to Ireland as a patronising attempt on the part or the majority of the English Members in the House of Commons to make the Irish people sober. The Irish people will naturally say,' Make yourselves
    38
    sober first.' Why should this experiment be made upon the body of the Irish people? Perhaps on the principle of fiat experimentum in corpore; vili. Anything is good enough for Ireland, no matter how doubtful its character. No doubt that is the view of the great majority of the Liberal Party in the House, but a measure conceived under such auspices is foredoomed to failure. The Irish people will naturally say' This is a part of the insolent system to which we have been accustomed for so many years on the part of the English nation; and we decline to believe in our excessive drunkenness in comparison with our kind English friends.' The Irish people will doubt the bond-fides of this measure, and will do their best to circumvent it, as the measures in existence have already been circumvented."
    In pointing out that no exceptional circumstances had arisen for such drastic legislation, the same speaker said, and I commend his words to those members of my Party who are supporting this Bill. He said—
    "No one would dare to propose such a measure as this for any English city, and surely English Liberals and Radicals, who have pledged themselves to the principle of Home Rule, and who denounce all English legislation for Ireland on the ground that it comes in a foreign garb, might have waited for some cases to be set up of exceptional intemperance before they support this Coercion Bill, for it is one.
    Is any case made out for doing for these Irish cities and towns what would not be done in the ease of any large English city? No attempt has ever been made to show in the case of these Irish towns that there is any exceptional drunkenness or crime arising out of intemperance."
    Since Mr. Parnell's speech statistics had shown that crime and drunkenness had been on the decrease in Ireland, and the measures at the disposal of the Executive were quite sufficient to deal with this question. The licensed dealers, if they had any regard for their business, would only be too delighted to see drunkenness stamped out. The drunkard was of no use to any house, for he generally had no money, and the licensed trader would be delighted to keep the like of him out of the house. He could not allow the extracts read by the hon. Member for South Belfast to go unchallenged. He would quote to the House opinions showing that the men of Ireland were as anxious as anyone else to keep down drunkenness, but they were also anxious to keep free from the consequences and risks which might follow in the wake of this Bill if it became law. The Most Rev. Dr. Walsh, the Archbishop of Dublin, gave his opinion upon bogus

    39
    clubs. The hon. Member for South Belfast said there was no such thing as bogus clubs in Belfast, but he ventured to prophesy that if this Bill were passed they would spring up like mushrooms. He could not believe that Englishmen would attempt to pass such legislation as this, in direct opposition to the views and feelings of the people of Ireland. The Archbishop of Dublin, speaking of bogus clubs, said—
    "Within the last few months the evils of the 'Bogus Club' system in Dublin have been largely increased. Those evils are already growing at a rate sufficiently rapid to make every true friend of temperance in our city view with alarm the possibility of anything being done that could tend to the further development of so ruinous a system. The so called Sunday Closing Bill, if passed into law, could not fail to lead to a disastrous development of it. I am therefore, strenuously opposed to the enactment of such a measure. I am, in fact, opposed to the imposition of further restrictions of any kind upon the licensed trade in Dublin, so long as the present system of absolutely unlicensed trading in the 'Bogus Clubs' is allowed by law to continue."
    This, then, was the view at that time of one of the most eminent divines in Ireland, and I have no reason to think that he has changed them since. The Mayor of Waterford (Mr. Toole) said in his evidence before the same Commission that—
    "Shebeen drinking and drinking in low public-houses after hours would be increased by the closing of public-houses totally on Sundays."
    His hon. friend the Member for South-East Cork, speaking as the President of the Cork Trades Council, said—
    "Being personally interested in total abstinence, I have made it my business to look round the City and go into the lowest dens and the highest hotels, and T think that there is very little shebeening in Cork. There is a little, but probably there would be a great deal more if the houses were closed on Sundays. The great majority are in favour of leaving things as they are."
    He also gave evidence himself, and speaking as the mouthpiece of the Dublin Trades Council and the Irish Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, he said—
    "If you close the public-houses men who want to get drink will go into what are called beerhouses and other houses of doubtful fame, where beer is sold on the quiet, and this would be productive of immorality. If you introduce home drinking it would be a temptation to
    40
    the wives and children of our families to join in it, and from being sober wives, as we wish them to be, they would possibly become drunkards."
    The men who were attempting to pass this Bill into law could take their friends into legitimate clubs, but working men had few such clubs, and he would rather see them not go into these clubs at all. But even the legitimate clubs ought to be under the supervision of the Act. What made him take a strong stand upon this was that the class of club he spoke of was springing up in the City, which it was taking all the time of the police to try to put a stop to. In his evidence the Mayor of Limerick said—
    "I believe that the people who want drink will get it, and there will be a supply created to meet the demand. I am thoroughly opposed to Sunday closing, and with regard to early Saturday night closing I do not give any opinion at present, but I express this opinion of the city through its proper channel, the Corporation and the Trades, as being totally opposed to any change with regard to Saturday closing, and in that opinion I concur."
    The Congregated Trades of Limerick passed a Resolution in the following terms—
    "We are strongly of opinion that if such a Bill becomes law, its results would be to encourage the illicit trade and lead to the system of introducing drink into the houses of the people, and spread very extensively the contaminating vice of intemperance."
    The Chief Police Magistrate of Dublin says—
    "I think the number of shebeen houses would increase very considerably if you shut up the public houses altogether, or shut them up too early on Saturday night."
    The Rev. Dr. Tynan, the parish priest of St. Michael's and St. John's, Dublin, says—
    "The result of closing the public-houses at ten o'clock or at nine o'clock on the Saturday night would be to throw open the shebeens to the people who would otherwise drink in the public-house."
    Mr. Ward, one of the superintendents of the Dublin Police Force, said—
    "That a curtailment of the hours on Saturday night, or the extension of the present Act to Dublin, would lead to the increasing of shebeening."
    Mr. Charles Dawson's opinion was—
    "To my mind the Act would lead to improper drinking at home and in places far away from powers of observation."

    41
    Sir David Harrel, the Under Secretary for Ireland, and formerly Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, was asked if the closing of public-houses would lead to the establishment of drinking clubs, and he replied—
    "I think it would tend to. I should think that would be a very possible consequence, and I think the consequence would be disastrous. To close public-houses on Saturday nights at nine o'clock would result in a very great inconvenience to the Dublin public within the city boundary."
    And lastly, the Dublin United Trades' Council and Labour League resolved—
    "That we protest against the closing of the public-houses in Ireland on Sundays and early closing on Saturdays, and we believe it to be an uncalled for and coercive measure, and we call upon our representatives in Parliament to oppose the Bill."
    He thought he had now said sufficient to show that the hon. Member for Belfast had not all the opinions on his side in favour of Saturday closing. His experience was that the greatest evils arose from illicit drinking, which took place after the public-houses were closed, in bogus clubs and other places. He would advise those who were so anxious for temperance legislation to visit some of the clubs and see for themselves what was being done there. Before they attempted to pass this Bill they should first have attempted to give Ireland the benefit of the Bill which they had passed for England a trial in Ireland, and if it failed, then there might be some reason to ask for Saturday closing. If they did that they might expect a more favourable reception from hon. Members on his side of the House, who were as anxious to see Ireland sober as hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was as much opposed to the long hours worked in public houses as hon. Members opposite, and would be prepared to support any Bill brought in to limit them, but at the same time he objected to the legislation which was now proposed, as he honestly believed it would only increase the evil which its promoters hoped to cure. He therefore hoped the House would adopt the Amendment standing in his name. He moved it.
    MAJOR JAMESONseconded the Amendment. The speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was
    42
    one of the strongest he had ever listened to. On the one side they had heard matters of fact, and on the other side they had been asked to pity the drunken father in Belfast with ten children clinging to him singing, "Father, dear father, come home." He had always been lead to think that the people of Belfast were sober people. He wished to remind the House that most of those licensed houses were also grocers and bakers, and, therefore, by this Bill they would stop a man buying the necessaries of life after a certain hour. This measure would mean practically that they would be asking these people to rebuild their premises, so as to make one side a licensed shop and the other a grocer's shop. It was a fallacy to assume that the people of Ireland would ever consent to such a thing. Ireland consumed less wines and spirits than England or Scotland, but this Bill would stamp Ireland as being a drunken country, where the working classes were unable to take care of themselves. Could any measure be more absurd? He felt sure that the passing of this Bill would drive the working classes into the haunts of vice and crime. Allowing men to drink in these licensed places was far more likely to lead to temperance than attempting to prevent them getting what they desired, and thus driving them into those wretched shebeens. It was a well-known fact that Saturday was the pay-day in most of the manufacturing towns in Ireland. Many working men received their money late on Saturday, and according to the proposal now before the House they were no longer to be allowed to do their shopping and to purchase the necessaries of life after nine o'clock. If the House passed this Bill on what shoulders would this enormous deprivation and punishment be placed? Not on the shoulders of hon. Gentlemen who put their names on the back of the Bill. They had their own cellars. If they were of the temperance persuasion they were simply condemning what they regarded as the sins of others. They would not allow a commodity which others regarded as a necessity because they disliked it themselves.
    The promoters of this kind of legislation did not go to the great root of the evil by providing inducements for the workingman

    43
    to remain in his own home. He thought the House would agree with him that the first thing the hon. Member for South Belfast ought to have done, when he had the opportunity on a Friday afternoon, was to bring in a Bill for the housing of the working classes instead of bringing in a Bill which would interfere with working men's freedom. He had yet to learn that the House of Commons, which refused Home Rule to Ireland and would not allow the Irish people to legislate for themselves, was going to do such a grossly unfair act as to pass this Bill, which was directed against the soberest portion of the three kingdoms. He asked the House in the name of common-sense to refuse to penalise the traders of Ireland by enacting that their shops should be closed at nine o'clock, because it suited a few faddists to say that they should be so closed. He hoped the House would, by an overwhelming majority, reject the Bill, because he believed it was a measure which would undoubtedly send working men into the haunts of vice and crime. In Dublin 30,000 visits had been paid by the police in one year to licensed premises, but the convictions for breaches of the law only amounted to ten. In the face of that fact were they going to say that Dublin was a drunken city, and that public-houses should be closed at nine o'clock? He asked the House in the name of freedom not to place on the backs of the Trade in Ireland a burden which they would not dare to put on the Trade in England and Scotland.
    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. Nannetti.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL said, so far as Irish Members were concerned, he believed he and another hon. Member were the sole Parliamentary survivors of the Committee of 1888, which had been referred to so frequently in the course of the debate. He had listened with something akin to astonishment at the use made on the other side
    44
    of the House of the evidence given before the Council. What had taken, place? In 1888 he carried a Bill precisely similar to this through the stage of Second Reading, and with the aid of Lord Randolph Churchill, who was a warm friend of the Measure, he secured a majority of considerably over a hundred for that Bill. The Committee on Sunday closing was sitting upstairs at the time, and a Motion was carried in the House referring the Saturday Early Closing Bill to that Committee, which was then engaged in considering whether the Sunday Closing Act should be extended to the five exempted cities in Ireland. What had taken place in the House that day? Evidence had been quoted as against Saturday early closing, which before the Committee was given against total Sunday closing, for the evidence before that Committee was almost unanimously in favour of Saturday early closing and against Sunday closing. It was the most ingenuous use of evidence he had ever heard in the House of Commons. Let them take the case of Mr. C. J. O'Donnell, a police magistrate in Dublin—he was a fanatic on the Saturday closing question, but he was vehemently opposed to total Sunday closing. Yet Mr. O'Donnell's evidence against Sunday closing had been quoted as against Saturday and Sunday closing. He thought it right to tell the House frankly what use had been made of that evidence that day.
    They were told that it would be time enough to pass legislation of this kind when they got an Irish Parliament. Well, that was a favourite argument in the olden days, but he did not know how far the establishment of an Irish Parliament was off. If he were satisfied that an Irish Parliament were imminent, so convinced was he of the practical unanimity of Irish opinion on this question, that he would cheerfully reserve the question until it could be settled at College Green. But why should this plea to wait for Home Rule be confined to this one measure? They had heard that day some tremendous Home Rulers among the opponents of the Bill. Some of them were not so punctual in their attendance when Irish questions were under discussion. They

    45
    were to-day, he maintained, the sole opponents of a purely Irish Bill. They were told that the promoters ought to have done something else. They were told that they ought to have brought in a Bill to regulate clubs. If they had done so, would the hon. Members opposite have supported it? He had been nearly twenty years in the House, and went through all the Sunday closing battle. What was the argument then? Why, deal with Saturday closing first ! That was where all the mischief arose. They said get rid of the Saturday night mischief first, and don't trouble about Sunday. Now that they had come to deal with Saturday closing, they found that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted the clubs regulated. Very well, they would meet their demands. On April the 3rd he was to be in charge of a Bill to regulate clubs, and he should be deeply interested in looking into the position of his friends who had been so vehement against the Bill now before the House. He was not going to quote Bishops and others about Saturday early closing. What he said was that there was not a Member for Ireland who did not know that the whole balance of public opinion, clerical and lay, was in favour of this Bill.
    There was not a man there who did not know where the opposition to this Bill sprang from. If anyone doubted it, he could not have been in the Outer Lobby during the last few days. Where had they got their Whips from? From the licensed victuallers of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and other places. Crowds of them had been in the Lobby putting pressure upon Members. He was not going to say that if the public houses were closed two hours earlier on Saturdays, there would be no resort to the shebeens. He believed that every curtailment of the drink traffic had its dangers in that way. But what did the hon. Gentlemen opposite take the people of Ireland for? Did they imagine that Ireland was a nation of drunkards? [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] He admitted that the confirmed drunkard if prevented from getting drink legally on Saturday nights would smell round and get it. But were there nobody but drunkards to be considered? Was it not worth while to make it easy
    46
    for people to do right and difficult to do wrong? It was in the interests of all, and not in the interests of drunkards, that the Bill was required, and it was their desire that young men and young women would not go to clubs and shebeens. He agreed with the testimony of almost every Catholic bishop and Protestant minister in saying that the working men's homes would be pounds richer every year, and their children given a better chance of obtaining what tens of thousands of them were at present deprived of, if the keeping open of public houses to a late hour were prevented. He distinctly declared to the House of Commons that the only opposition to this Bill came from the publicans of Ireland. [Cries of "No, no!"] He asked whether his hon. friend for North Kerry would show him any circulars he got from any other source than the Trade.
    MR. FLAVIN: I wish to say that no publican or anyone else has put pressure on me.
    MR. RUSSELL MR. RUSSELL said that every circular that came to him, and he had received about a dozen, had been from the Trade, and all the efforts to get support for the Bill had come from those who were endeavouring to save the country from the red ruin caused by drink.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the matter before the House had already been thoroughly discussed on this and other occasions, and therefore he thought a division might be taken. He believed he could speak with some little authority on this matter, because it was one on which he had not always held exactly the same opinion. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had stated that he had been nearly twenty years in the House. He himself had been somewhat longer in the House; and during all that time this Question had been in one way or another brought up and discussed. There were always Members who argued that the early closing of public-houses on Saturday and closing on Sunday were not the proper methods of proceeding with temperance reform. He confessed that when he was a young man he was influenced by these arguments, but he had waited for twenty years for those

    47
    Gentlemen to bring forward proposals which would be more efficacious and generally acceptable than those which had been made from time to time, but he had never heard any such proposals. He was profoundly convinced of the absolute necessity for something being done, not to prevent the Irish people from being more drunken than the people of this or any other country, for they were nothing of the kind, but to make it easier for men to preserve their sobriety and their money for the benefit of their families and the welfare of the country generally.
    He was not one of those who imagined that the proper way to proceed in this matter was to cast reflections upon the gentlemen connected with the licensed trade in Ireland. He knew many of them, and they were upright and honourable traders in their line of business. They were endeavouring to safeguard their interests, as was only natural, and he had no attack to make upon them. On the contrary, he believed a great number of them would not object to this measure if they thought it would do something to promote the general cause of temperance. When he was recently in the United States he was profoundly impressed with the position of the people of the Irish race, who had carefully guarded themselves in this matter of temperance They were prosperous, wealthy, and generally respected. In America he had a hard time answering attacks on the cause he represented, but he was fairly well able to hold his own. When, however, he was from time to time confronted with the statement that in Ireland between seventy and eighty million dollars were spent every year in drink, he found that he was unable to give anything which could possibly be considered by the friends of Ireland, an adequate explanation of that fact. Although per head of the population the Irish were more temperate than the Scotch and English, he believed they spent more in drink than they could afford, for their taxable capacity was not as great. He believed that the hon. Member for South Tyrone—whose bitter enemy he had been for many years in this House—was correct in stating that the vast majority of the Irish people were at one on this measure. The op-
    48
    position to the Bill came from the Trade, and not from the people. The people had not held meetings to oppose the Bill.
    MR. NANNETTI MR. NANNETTI said a meeting was held in the Phoenix Park on this very question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: With reference to this Bill?
    MR. NANNETTI: A Bill of a similar character.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND MR. WILLIAM REDMOND said there might be an exception, but he defied contradiction when he stated that, generally speaking, there had been nothing in the shape of a widespread expression of opinion against the Bill. The only meetings, which he knew, that had been held outside the people interested in these matters, the only free and open meetings of citizens—representing all classes and creeds—had been in favour of the Bill—meetings in Dublin, Belfast, and Cork. [Cries of dissent from IRISH MEMBERS.] Well, at any rate, that was his statement, and he was open to correction if he were wrong. The masses of the working people and the citizens of Ireland at large, as shown by their popular demonstrations, had, generally speaking, expressed their opinion in favour of this measure and not against it. He was sorry to separate himself from hon. Gentlemen with whom he had been working with absolute unanimity of spirit for so long, but he did propound his belief that, whether Catholics or Protestants, almost all were in favour of the Bill. It was not possible for any one, Catholic or Protestant, to go through the length and breadth of Ireland without seeing there was something necessary, not to make the people less drunken—for they were already less drunken than any other portion of the world—but to further the cause of sobriety. He had been very much surprised that some Member of the Irish Government had not been present during this debate. He thought that was simply scandalous. It was not treating those either in favour of, or opposed to, the Bill with proper courtesy. It was urged that this was a Bill which should

    49
    be left to the Irish Parliament to deal with. That was the view of the late Mr. Parnell, but even supposing the Irish Parliament was, in the least degree, likely to deal with this matter on the most moderate terms, he thought that this was a Bill which ought to be passed now. It was said that the result would be to create an increase of shebeening, which everybody must condemn; but if that were the case, a measure of this kind could easily be repealed. He appealed to what was undoubtedly the expressed opinion of the Irish people, and In their interest, and that of their children, he asked the House to agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. CARSON, Dublin University)said he would not make a speech of any considerable length on this subject. He need hardly say that he did not rise on behalf of the Irish Government, but simply as an Irish Member, representing an Irish constituency, to a large extent composed of clergy of the Irish Church, to which he belonged. So far as his constituents were concerned he was well aware that they were absolutely in agreement with the hon. Member, who had just sat down, when he said that this very modest measure ought to be passed as soon as possible. And with that opinion he himself entirely agreed. He thought it was almost a scandal that this simple proposal to shorten the closing hours of public houses on Saturday evenings, which had been recommended by a Committee of this House so far back as 1888, had never been put on the Statute Book. Really one would think from the opposition offered in some quarters that they were going to revolutionise the whole liquor business in Ireland, and do it a treat injury. This was a small reform; he wished it had gone much further; but such as it was, it was a step in the right direction, and in his own belief was wanted. His conviction was that temperance reform in this country and in Ireland had often been thwarted because reformers tried to do too much at a time.
    MR. HAVILAND BURKEsaid he had a feeling of great regret at being separated on this question from some of his colleagues, for whom he had personal esteem and affection. But there were certain cases in
    50
    which it was cowardly to give a silent vote, and the present occasion was one of these. He invited the attention of the House to the fact that not one of the supporters of the Bill had given any definite proof that the public opinion of Ireland was at their back. In his own constituency he had, since his election, received scores of communications from County Councils, District Councils, Urban Councils, Associations, and individuals on every imaginable subject; he had had resolutions forwarded to him about university education, financial relations, and many other things; but not one single resolution by a representative body asking him to support the Bill now under discussion. That was evidence that there was no overwhelming and burning desire in favour of this Measure, as had been claimed for it by some hon. Members. On a question of this kind, when they had an organisation with money and brains at its back, it was easy to get up favourable meetings in Cork, Belfast, or Dublin, but he would have preferred if the mover, seconder, and supporters of the Second Reading of the Bill had been in a position to read out resolutions in its favour from County Councils and other popular bodies elected by ballot. Something had been said about shebeening. He had often heard the argument used that if shebeens continued to exist it was because those responsible failed to administer the law; but he contended that if the shebeening, which he believed would be the immediate effect of the passing of this Bill, were to be put down, they would have to arm the constabulary of Ireland with such powers, to enter into any house in any town or village in the country, day or night, as would be found to be absolutely intolerable. It was a serious danger identified with all legislation of this character, that they could not enforce it without a system of police despotism which was intolerable to any modern community. He heartily agreed with his hon. friend the Member for East Clare that the population of Ireland drank less per head than either their Scotch or English neighbours, but it was also perfectly true that they spent a great deal more than they could afford in drink.
    His objection to this special legislation for Ireland was that it tended

    51
    to produce in the public mind of the civilised world the impression that Ireland required special treatment for the evils of drink. He denied that entirely; and he had to say that in the minds of men like himself, a great reaction had taken place in regard to this kind of legislation by the grossly exaggerated speeches and resolutions passed at temperance meetings. Any one able to read the English and Irish newspapers would imagine that Ireland was the most conspicuous of the three kingdoms for drunkenness. He believed that no grievance existed which entitled the House to put the principal shopkeepers in Ireland to the expense of re building or remodelling their premises in order to come into line with the rules under the Bill. He believed that this measure would lead to an increase in home drinking and shebeen drinking, for men would take home with them supplies of drink. Now, he insisted that if a man must get drunk, it would be better in every way for him to get drunk in a public-house and then be chucked out to make his way home, than to find himself in a shebeen, where he would drink all through the night, take a short sleep, and then get drunk again until the Sunday night came. That was what happened in Dublin. He knew the manager of perhaps the biggest printing establishment in Ireland, who confirmed all that had been said by the hon. Member for College Division in regard to Monday being the worst day of the week for the men to work. This manager, himself a total abstainer, was of opinion that shebeening in Dublin was the cause of it. He could assure his friends, from whom he differed on this question, that he was as earnestly desirous as they were themselves, to pass any well-considered legislation which would promote the cause of temperance, but he thought that the present law had not been properly enforced, and that it
    52
    had failed for want of sufficiently stern and systematic administration. He trusted that whatever law was passed, it should be the same for Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen. On these grounds he opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. FLAVINsaid he could not stand up in that House to declare that he had enjoyed the pleasure of being an abstainer every other day. He had been a teetotaller for close on thirty years, but at the same time he was a believer in every man having his drink if he wanted it. There were some teetotallers who laid down the principle that every other human being should conform to their practice. That was a doctrine which had never succeeded, and would never succeed in keeping men away from the public house. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said that the Chief of Police in Dublin, Mr. O'Donnell, was altogether against Sunday closing, but in favour of closing at nine o'clock on Saturday night. He argued that it was immaterial whether they shut up the public-houses at nine o'clock, for if a man wanted drink he would get it at six o'clock as well as at nine o'clock. It was quite true that in five cities in Ireland the Sunday Closing Act was not in operation; but there were no statistics of the number of arrests made after the public-houses were closed on Saturday night. The only record of arrests was between eight o'clock on Sunday morning, and two o'clock in the afternoon, but he maintained that the great majority of these arrests were of men who had been drunk on the Saturday night. Where the average man was prevented from having his drink legitimately, he would get it in the sheebeen. Ireland was, as a matter of fact, one of the most drunken countries on the face of the earth, and that that was so could be seen from the arguments in favour of this Bill. He knew that the people of Ireland spent too much money in drink, and if he thought

    53
    that the closing of the public-houses at nine o'clock on Saturday nights would he the moans of reducing the number of drunkards he would vote in favour of it,
    He had voted for prohibition in the State of Dakota, in America, where there was a prohibition law, but where there was more drunkenness than in any other State in America. In his humble judgment prohibition was a mistake from a purely temperance point of view, and they could not make the Irish people more sober than the) were by legislation. There was no better evidence that the best way to promote sobriety was personal influence than in the crusade of Father Matthew, who did more in a short space of time for the cause of temperance than all the legislation ever passed. The true methods were not coercive methods, but to go among the people and advise them individually what was good for them. He could speak from experience in his own county of Kerry, where they had some of the worst drunkards in Ireland. [Laughter.] Tf that was any amusement to hon. Members he should say that they in Kerry were not much
    worse than some people in that House. His point was that it was not by legislation in Ireland that they would make men sober, or even by the Sunday Closing Act, or an Early Closing Saturday Act, but by the personal influence of such temperance sons as Father Macgillacuddy, who would go into the public-houses every day of the week, including Sunday, and every hour of the day, to persuade men to stop drinking.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONrose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
    *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER said that the Debate had not been a long one, but the question involved did not appear to be complicated, and being always unwilling to stand between the House and its desire to take a division on these Friday Bills, when he could reasonably avoid it, he would accept the Motion.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 19.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Oraig, Charles Curtis (Antrin, S.)

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hammond, John

    Arrol, Sir William

    Crombie, John William

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Bell, Richard

    Denny, Colonel

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Blake, Edward

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Humphreys Owen, Arthur C.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Jacoby. James Alfred

    Boland, John

    Dunn, Sir William

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Edwards, Frank

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Ffrench, Peter

    Levy, Maurice

    Burns, John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Caine, William Sproston

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lloyd-George, David

    Caldwell James

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Cameron, Robert

    Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Lundon, W.

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw, H.

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Malcolm Ian

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Grant, Corrie

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Norman, Henry

    O'Mara, James

    Russell, T. W.

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Palmer, Sir Charles, M. (Durham)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Perks, Robert William

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Wood, James

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Renwick, George

    Sullivan, Donal

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Mr. Sloan and Mr.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    O'Shaughnessy.

    Runciman, Walter

    Wallace, Robert

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    O'Dowd, John

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Anbrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir, H.

    Helder, Augustus

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Austin, Sir John

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Purvis, Robert

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

    Redmond, John E. (Water ford)

    Bigwood, James

    Lawson, John Grant

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bond, Edward

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bull, William James

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Chapman, Edward

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cullinan, J.

    M'Kean, John

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Vincent, Col Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

    Doogan, P. C.

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

    Duffy, William J.

    Mooney, John J.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E, R.)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Flower. Ernest

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Mr. Nannetti and Mr.

    Gore, Hn, S. F. Ormsby (Linc)

    O' Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary Mid)

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 20.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hammond, John

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Arrol, Sir William

    Crombie, John William

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Bell, Richard

    Delany, William

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottham)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Denny, Colonel

    Hudson. George Bickersteth

    Blake, Edward

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

    Boland, John

    Dunn, Sir William

    Jacoby. James Alfred

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Edwards, Frank

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Burns, John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Caine, William Sproston

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Levy, Maurice

    Caldwell, James

    Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cameron, Robert

    Gilhooly, James

    Lloyd-George, David

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Lundon, W.

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Grant, Corrie

    MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wallace, Robert

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Runciman, Walter

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Murphy, John

    Russell, T. W.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Norman, Henry

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Mara, James

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Perks, Robert William

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Wood, James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Soares Ernest J.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxfd Univ)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Mr. Sloan and Mr.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    O'Shaughnessy.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    FitzGerald. Sir Robt. Penrose

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O'Dowd, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Austin, Sir John

    Gore, Hn, S. F. Ormsby (Linc)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Reddy, M.

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Renwick, George

    Bigwood, James

    Helder, Augustus

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bond, Edward

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis.)

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Bull, William James

    Loder, Gerald Waiter Erskine

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cecil. Evelvn [Anton Manor)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Chapman, Edward

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. A. (Sheffield)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Cullinan, J.

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Mooney, John J.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Mr. Nannetti and Mr.

    Duffy, William J.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Patrick O'Brien.

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    MR, SLOAN claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
    Main Question put accordingly,
    "That the Bill be now read a second, time."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 21.)

    AYES

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

    Caine, William Sproston

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

    Caldwell, James

    Delany, William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cameron, Robert

    Denny, Colonel

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Barry, E. (Cork. S.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Dunn, Sir William

    Bell, Richard

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Edwards, Frank

    Bignold, Arthur

    Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasg.)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Blake, Edward

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Boland, John

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Cremer, William Randal

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Crombie, John William

    Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Burns, John

    Dalziel. James Henry

    Gilhooly, James

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Gordon. J. (Londonderry, S.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

    Grant, Corrie

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sullivan, Donal

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

    Monlton, John Fletcher

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv

    Hammond, John

    Murphy, John

    Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Norman, Henry

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    O'Mara, James

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

    Wallace, Robert

    Houldsworth. Sir Wm. Henry

    Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

    Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.)

    Howard, J. (Midd, Tott'ham)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Hudson. George Bickersteth

    Perks, Robert William

    Wason. John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Joyce. Michael

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Wood, James

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Russell, T. W.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Mr. Sloan and Mr.

    Lundon. W.

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

    O'Shaughnessy.

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    O' Brien, Kendal (Tip'erary Mid)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Flower, Ernest

    O'Connor James (Wicklow, W.)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Dowd, John

    Ambrose, Robert

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Linc)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, )

    Aubrey-Eletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Austin, Sir John

    Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Purvis, Robert

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Reddy, M.

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Helder, Augustus

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Horner, Frederick William

    Renwick, George

    Bigwood, James

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bond, Edward

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Bull, William James

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Burke. E. Haviland

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Chapman, Edward

    Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Vincent, Col. V. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

    Cullman, J.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    White, Patrick (Meath, North

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Mooney, John J.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

    Duffy, William J.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Mr. Nannetti and Mr.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Patrick O'Brien.

    FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

    STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.)
    Sir JAMES FERGUSSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
    Sir JAMES FERGUSSON Sir JAMES FERGUSSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had agreed to the following Resolution: That any Member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other Member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place in case of necessity.
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    Adjourned at live minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.