§ Order for Second Beading read.
§ MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)
, 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. 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 (King's County, Birr)
What does the Inspector say about the Custom House steps? [Cries of "Order."]
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.
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. 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'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.)
failed 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 (Dublin, College Green)
, 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.
§ *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 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 JAMESON (Clare, W.)
seconded 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.
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 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. 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 REDMOND (Clare, E.)
said 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 said a meeting was held in the Phoenix Park on this very question.
§ 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 BURKE (King's County, Tullamore)
said 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. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)
said 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 SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
rose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.
§ *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.)55
|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|
|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."56
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 20.)57
|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|
|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,58
§ "That the Bill be now read a second, time."
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 101; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 21.)59
|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.|
|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.