§ *MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.) moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said the principle of the measure was well known to the House, and it had behind it the opinion of the vast majority of the people of Wales. It was backed by an overwhelming majority of the Welsh Members of Parliament. If the principle of Local Veto were applied to Wales, he believed the measure might be the means of paving the way for the application of the principle to the other parts of the country.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)said the principle of the Bill was no doubt in one sense a good one. That was to say, the objects the promoters of the Bill had at heart were objects which its opponents had also at heart. They were both desirous to put down intemperance, but it was because he could not agree that the method proposed in the Bill was the best for accomplishing that object that he felt obliged to oppose the Second Reading. The promoters of the Bill wished to bring about temperance by legislation. The method which he and his friends advocated was the encouragement of temperance by example. [Laughter.] He did not know why hon. Gentlemen laughed. He thought it was undoubted that during the last thirty or forty years there had been great improvement in this matter. He did not think anybody would maintain that the greater sobriety 1134 of the nation had been caused by legislation, and therefore it must have been caused by example. Thirty or forty years ago there was nothing more common in the upper classes of society than to get drunk after dinner. Now it was very uncommon, and he ventured to say that if a man did get drunk no one would ever ask him to dine.
§ And, it being half-past Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 19th June.