HC Deb 25 May 1906 vol 157 cc1565-633

Order for Second Heading read.

MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.)

, in moving the Second Heading said he would like to ask hon. Members who had not heard this Bill discussed before to give him their attention and indulgence, as the measure applied entirely to Ireland. This was not a subject of religious views whatever. In fact, if the House would look at the names on the back of the Bill they would see that it represented all the different sections. The Select Committee which sat in regard to the question of the shortening of the hours for the sale of intoxicants, recommended nine o'clock closing on Saturday nights. In 1896 the Royal Commission endorsed the Select Committee's recommendations. There had been thousands of meetings in Ireland in favour of early Saturday closing, and entire Sunday closing, and the further extension of the distance required of the bona fide traveller. These reforms were not only necessary, but absolutely desirable in the interests of Ireland as a whole. It was quite true that there was opposition to the Bill. He supposed it was quite natural, but when they noted the quarter from which the opposition came, they would at once realise that it would be one of the greatest miracles of the age if that opposition did not exist—it came from the Licensed Victuallers' Association. The idea that the temperance reformers wanted to injure individuals might very well be cast on one side when he said they were trying to save the individual from the temptation to indulge in excessive drinking. The first two clauses of the Bill were identical with those in the Bill reported to the House by a Select Committee in 1888 and had been endorsed by the House on several other occasions. The Bill proposed to extend to the cities which were at present exempted the statute which prohibited the sale of liquor on Sunday, and to extend its provisions to the whole country. Sunday closing did not exist in the five cities in Ireland, and they found that where it did exist outside those cities it was not only a great boon to the people, but was generally so accepted by them. There had indeed been no serious complaint. The Bill proposed to amend the law in respect of the bona fide, traveller, by requiring that instead of going three miles to get a drink, he should not be justified in obtaining it unless he went four extra miles. The Select Committee reported that a great deal of excessive drinking on Saturday nights would be avoided by early closing. He did not expect the House would accept the proposition from him that he was not a bigoted temperance reformer. He had sat in the House since 1902, and he regretted to say that the idea of hon. Members of temperance advocates was not only erroneous, but extravagant. They were supposed to set up their opposition against individuals and not against the system. He had nothing at all to do with individuals engaged in the traffic. All he desired to do was to make it as easy as possible to do right, and as difficult as possible to do wrong. If public-houses were opened very early in the morning they ought not to remain open till eleven at night. To take two hours from those houses was a proposal that should meet with the support of all reasonable and right minded men. In 1903 when a similar Bill came before the House and passed the Second Reading, a Member for Dublin pointed out the necessity for regulating the clubs, and declared that if the temperance reformers would bring in a Bill to regulate the business of those institutions, they would do a great service. Well, to show their disposition to meet that desire, his hon. friend the Member for Mid. Antrim last year brought in a Bill regulating clubs, and he was glad to say that it received universal support of hon. Members, and, in fact, the support of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, it being a Bill which protected their interests. In 1897, a memorial was presented to the Lord - Lieutenant asking him to use his influence with the Government of the day to have the Bill passed. It was signed by thirteen Protestant bishops, sixteen Roman Catholic 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, 1,117 merchants and employers, and scores of public meetings had been held endorsing the provisions contained in the Bill, and asking the House to place it on the Statute Book for the purpose of making Ireland more sober than she was at the present time. Ireland was a very poor; country. His hon. friends were always pleading the poverty of the country. They were desirous of legislating for thepurpose of meeting the requirements of all the parties concerned, and he thought the Government in power were more disposed to meet certain sections in the country than the Government which some time since laid down the reins of office. It would be a good thing if they would reduce the drink bill, which was far larger than Ireland could afford. When they realised that 4,250,000 of people spent between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 every year in drink, and that that expenditure came from the poorest of the poor in the country, they would quite understand why some of the poverty existed. He did not think any good came to temperance by exaggeration and he was not going to exaggerate the case; but he knew from personal observation in the country—north, south, east and west—that there was a universal opinion, from those in high social positions to the humblest in the land, that the opening of public-houses till eleven o'clock on Saturday nights was not an absolute necessity. The Licenced Victuallers' Association had sent out a circular stating that Saturdays were market days and that nine till eleven was the busiest time. In the Belfast shipbuilding yards the men were paid on Friday evenings, and they knew perfectly well that many of the workmen did not return to work till the Tuesday morning. If it was argued that men remained till eleven o'clock on Saturday night to spend the surplus money they had in drink he thought it was a very poor argument for the Licensed Victuallers' Association. As to the people who worked in mills, they were paid at twelve o clock on Saturday, and from twelve till nine o'clock was sufficient for the spending of any loose cash which might be necessary to gratify the tastes that these individuals had. As to the argument that it was market day, he might say for the information of hon. Members opposite that there was no such thing as marketing going on between nine and eleven o'clock at night. The persons who required to provide themselves with the necessaries of life for the week-end generally went out before nine o'clock, and if they did not go out till nine it was not because they were detained by their husbands being employed, it was simply carelessness, and it only required a little arranging to make purchases ealier. In 1882 a canvass was taken of the five cities with regard to the desirability of closing public - houses all day on Sunday. He would ask the House to pay attention to the figures which were given in that particular year in favour of Sunday closing. A vote had been taken in the large towns on the question of Sunday closing and he had the results. In Dublin there were 34,606 for and only 8,117 against; in Belfast 23,958 for and 3,912 against; in Cork 9,605 for and 1,870 against; in Limerick 5,604 for and 550 against and in Waterford 3,945 for and 290 against. These figures as far as the population was concerned proved beyond all doubt that the people were desirous that public-houses should be closed. Since his connection with the Bill he had had communications from all classes of people in Ireland who were in favour of it, and that day he had received telegrams from persons of all denominations, including Roman Catholics, desiring that the Bill should have the favourable consideration of the House, and that it should be made an Act of Parliament so that its restrictions could be carried out. He could not for the life of him understand why any Irish Member should object to the Bill. The hon. Member for East Clare made a memorable speech in 1903. He said he had travelled all over America and had answered many difficult questions, but he had never been able to reply to the charge of drunkenness in Ireland. They had to face the facts even though they told against their own country and countrymen, and there was no doubt that a great deal of poverty, hardship and distress in Ireland was due to over indulgence in alcoholic liquor. If hon. Members who opposed the Bill could show some justification for disregarding the will of the people in this respect and why restrictions should not be put on the sale of liquor he hoped they would do so on evidence which was incontrovertible. It was not merely a section or a trade he and his friends were representing. They spoke the mind of practically the whole country as to a measure that commended itself to the people. Great stress had been laid on the fact that in Scotland this policy had been pursued. He was not very conversant with the practice there, but he found from the annual report for 1897 that Captain Monro, the Government Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, said— The effect of the early closing on peace and order has been so very satisfactory that it is to be regretted that it was not made more general, or indeed, absolute, instead of permissive, as it would, while improving peace and order, also have relieved the police in large cities and burghs earlier in the night to attend to the very important duty of patrolling and watching. The object of the present Bill was simply to take two hours off Saturday night, to include the five large towns he had referred to in the Sunday Closing Act, and to make the bona fide traveller or the man who desired liquor to go a reasonable distance to secure refreshment. He appealed to the House to consider it not as a political question, but as one affecting the good of the country. If he might say it without sarcasm they had now in power a temperance Government—a Government which favoured temperance reform for the whole of the United Kingdom, and which had a disposition to be favourable towards reasonable temperance legislation that would not inflict hardship or undue restrictions on the rights of fellow citizens. He asserted that these provisions in the Bill were not undue restrictions on the liberties of anyone. The measure was only a fair and honest attempt to meet the difficulties of the situation, and to reduce the evils of Saturday night drinking as far as possible. If hon. Members looked to the returns from Ireland they would find that since the Sunday Closing Act came into force there had been less drinking on Sundays. He need hardly appeal to the Labour Members, because they were almost all entirely in favour of temperance reform, and with them it was not a question of expediency but of practical politics. This was a question on which he had not the slightest doubt as to what the Government reply would be, but a favourable reply would not alter the situation as far as the practice in Ireland was concerned. The Bill purported to try and limit the dangers and temptations to which Irishmen were exposed. It might be said that they would go to shebeens or clubs if the Bill came into operation.

He did not know why that should be so if the law was strictly carried out. He knew hundreds of men who went as a matter of course for company's sake into public-houses, and to suggest that when they left the public-houses at nine o'clock they would go to shebeens was an insult to them. The people who went to shebeens were not the people whom they were trying to legislate for. It was no argument to say that the provisions of the Bill would result in more shebeen drinking. He left the Bill in the hands of the House to deal with entirely on the grounds on which it was proposed. It was a non-Party Bill, it was not of a religious character, and he was glad to say that the entire Ulster Party were in its favour. Any opposition there was to it would come from the Nationalist Members. They had to meet the facts. He represented not a bigoted temperance Party but a great proportion of the opinion of the country, and if the House would accept the Bill it would go far towards alleviating the grievances that existed, it would reduce the enormous amount that was spent on drink every year, and it would tend to make the people of the country more happy and prosperous.

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

said he was proud to support the Second Reading of the Bill which had been proposed so eloquently, clearly and convincingly by his hon. friend the Member for South Belfast. It had been truly said that the Irish Members differed deeply and sharply on many questions, but there was one consolation that these collisions in debate between Irish Members frequently enlivened the proceedings in the House to hon. Members from England and Scotland and made political life more interesting. There were many vital issues on which the Irish Members differed; but, on the other hand, there were some on which they could largely agree, and he hoped that on the Bill now before the House they could find common ground. At all events, he could speak for the general feeling of the people in Ulster; and in behalf of the Unionist Party in that province he could say that they gave this Bill their hearty and loyal support. The main provisions of the Bill were that Sunday closing was to be applied to all the large towns in Ireland as it had been successfully applied in the small towns; and also that all public-houses should be closed at 9 o'clock on Saturday evenings. As to Sunday dosing, he had never been able to understand why the large towns had been specially left out of the operation of the Act of 1878, because it was just in these large towns, which attracted young people from the country, that special provisions were wanted to diminish the temptations of town life. He most heartily and cordially supported the Bill. If he did not do so he would be false to every pledge he had given at many elections, false to the great constituency which he represented, and false also to the conscientious convictions of the great majority of the people of Ulster.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. J. P. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)

said he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months. He would like, however, to congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading on the moderation of his speech, especially when he knew that that hon. Gentleman was an out-and-out temperance man. He knew that if he had his own way he would not be content with closing the public-houses on Sunday and two hours earlier on Saturdays, but would deny the right of any person to have a glass of whiskey or a bottle of stout if he desired it at any time. The hon. Member was opposed to the sale of alcoholic liquors of any kind. He, himself, had lived for a very long time among the working classes of Ireland, and was as anxious as the hon. Member for South Belfast to promote sobriety and temperance; but he did not believe that this Bill would tend in that direction. He protested against the attempt to prevent the people from being able to obtain fresh and wholesome stimulants for their meals on Sundays. Such a thing could not take place in this country. His conviction was that if they closed the public-houses on Sunday the way would be opened up to many abuses, and that the Bill would turn out to be a curse. The hon. Member had said that he represented the opinion of Ulster in this matter. Now, he happened to be in Ulster a short time ago, and he was responsible in this House for a Bill to provide for the closing of the public-houses on one day of the year—Christmas Day—but the Government of the day insisted in putting into that Bill the bona-fide traveller clause; and he knew that a greater curse had never been imposed than by that clause. He was told that the suburban districts of the large towns were reeking with drunkenness on Christmas Day. [An HON. MEMBER: You did not include Bangor.] He did not know the meaning of the interruption; but he knew that the hon. Gentleman, the mover of this Bill, perpetuated in it the operation of the bona-fide travellers' clause. The hon. Gentle man had not the courage to remove it altogether. And they knew what the result would be in all the suburban districts of the great towns of Ireland if this Bill passed. Ireland had practically Sunday closing at the present time, with the exception of five large cities. He objected to Ireland being made the experimental ground for particular legislation. If English Members were anxious to see the people sober, why not first legislate in this direction for London and the other large cities in England? Let the English Members first show an example to Ireland. He had seen no reason to change his views from the time that he gave evidence before the Royal Commission as the representative of the working classes of Dublin, viz., that so long as the working classes in Ireland had not decent habitable houses, they must go for their recreation to the public-houses. The public - house was practically the poor man's club. He himself wanted to see the working men going to their homes at reasonable hours; but if the public - houses were closed on a Saturday night when a working man wanted to get a little fresh air and to obtain a little refreshment, he could not obtain it and he might resort to a place where the liquor and the conditions under which it was supplied would be a detriment to him. When this Bill was last before Parliament one of the Unionist papers in Dublin—the Irish Times—with whose opinions, of course, he did not always agree—in criticising the claim that early closing would diminish drunkenness, said— But is the Bill likely to achieve its object? We confess to a conviction that while the Bill, if it became law, will shut up the public houses at nine o'clock, it will open what will be infinitely more damageable to the working classes—a set of clubs which will be the most glorified and successful public-houses ever established. He was sure that the mover of the Bill did not desire to see such a state of things as that existing in Ireland. Anyone who had experience of life in big cities must know that if such a state of things were set up it would be a menace to the public welfare. It had been said that there was no demand in the City of Dublin for this concession, because there was no marketing after nine o'clock. But anyone who had experience of Dublin knew that there was a great deal of marketing after that hour. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not necessary.] He lid not say it was necessary, but it was he custom of the people. No doubt he House would pass the Bill, but if they passed it did they think they would make drunkenness less prevalent in Ireland? He would give another quotation from the Irish TimesThe vast, population of working men with Saturday night 'on their hands' and a free Sunday before them, will have a real interest in the formation of such establishments (meaning clubs), and we honestly confess that we shudder to think what will occur when the genuine working man's club comes into general existence and favour and has given up to it almost the entire of Saturday night as a monopoly. It might be urged that such a state of things could not exist, but he knew of working men's clubs, and other clubs which were used in the name of working men's clubs, which had been kept open all night and where many abuses existed. Dealing with the inconvenience to the public the same journal said— Very great inconvenience will result to a large number of traders, publicans, grocers, restaurant and hotel owners, should that Bill become law, for if such parties are to carry on their business with safety, under the new regulations they will have almost to remodel their premise, and at serious cost maintain a vigilance hitherto unnecessary. If we were sure that anything like a corresponding proportionate benefit would accrue to the working classes we would not hesitate to say that such a consideration Would not be entertained for a moment, but we do not believe that the closing of the public-houses at nine o'clock on Saturday nights will bring forth the good results which the advocates of the measure anticipate. It was an intolerable thing to think that he or any other working man walking along the streets and requiring refreshment should be debarred from getting it. What would be the result of this early closing? The liquor would be brought to the homes. Why should not a working man be able to ask his friends to come and have a drink? There was nothing wrong in it, but the effect of this Bill would be to bring liquor into the homes for consumption, and children would have a temptation set before them which was not a desirable one. Children should not have alcoholic Liquor brought under their notice until they came to the age of reason, and he objected to the houses of the working classes being made, as the Bill would have a tendency to make them, places where liquor would be brought on Saturday evenings and on Sundays. He thought that the hour of nine o'clock for closing in a large city was not reasonable. He also opposed the Bill on the ground that they were promised legislation of a kind which would enable them to look after such matters in their own country for themselves. He thought they should wait until that time came. This was not a matter with which Englishmen who did not understand them should deal. They should, he thought, begin at home in this matter and set Ireland an example. An hon. Member had spoken about America and said that Sunday Closing existed there. Well, he had been in that country. He knew that drink could be got there at all hours of the night and day. He was speaking of what he knew. He had been in New York, and when he came out of a printing office at half-past two in the morning he had been taken to a place where drink was obtained under conditions in which it was not desirable that it should be supplied in Ireland. That was not a condition of things which he desired to see in his country, as he thought that licensed houses should be under proper restraint and control. He did not think that this Bill would be the means of stopping drunkenness. He repudiated the statement that the Irishman was fond of drink, though no doubt he was fond of company. The working man must, however, have somewhere to go, and until they were able to give him some proper places o amusement and proper conditions of living all the legislation that was passed would not have the effect which the promoters of this Bill desired Therefore he was strongly opposed to the measure. In his constituency he had heard no word in support of the Bill except from temperance advocates zealous and earnest no doubt, but who would deny to any man the right to take any kind of liquor. Twenty years ago he represented the Trades Council as its President, and he was sent there to protest against the proposal to close public-houses in the City of Dublin. The working classes had not made any representation on the subject of this Bill, although he would not be so unfair as to say that he did not know that there were some working men in favour of it. But those were temperance men, and the man who drank with moderation would feel that it was a hardship if he were deprived of his refreshment. He had no interest in the sale of liquor, but he said that this Bill instead of being a blessing would prove a curse. Consequently he was bound to vote against it, and he begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)

seconded the Motion for the rejection. He should like to say at the outset that although he had arrived at the same conclusion on other grounds he was from the first predisposed against efforts of legislation of this kind. The attitude, the language and the methods of procedure of those who put them forward seemed to be founded upon a desire to injure what was called "The trade." The things which were said and the allusions which were made from time to time predisposed him before he began to think of the merits of the question, against proposals of this kind. He was also not predisposed to legislation of this nature by the fact that some of the speeches implied an exceptional degree of drunken- ness on the part of the people of Ireland. It was quite inaccurate to say that the Irish people were an exceptionally drunken people, and he for one was not disposed to view favourably measures of this character put forward on that ground, and he desired publicly to protest against such assertions. Taking the English, the Irish, and the Scottish people in comparison, the Irish people were the most sober of the three. That was proved by statistics, and therefore it was not necessary for him to labour the point, as he did not think his assertion would be denied. This Bill had no authority in its favour. It was true that it had been read a second time more than once, but he observed that on only one occasion had a majority of Irish Members supported this proposal. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Or opposed it.] He believed the majority of Irish Members had in most instances voted against it, and he observed that the majorities in favour of the measure had been dwindling ones. In 1883 the majority was 156; in 1891 it was 146; in 1895 it was ninety-seven, and in 189 it was twenty-seven. In the latte year of the fifty-one Members who voted representing Ireland twenty-six voted for it and twenty-five against it. In fact, 1897 was the only occasion when the majority of Irish Members voted in favour of the Bill, and then the majority was only one.


said that in 1903 there was a majority in favour of the measure not only of the Irish Members but of the Nationalist Members.


said no doubt the hon. Gentleman had verified the statement and therefore he would accept it at once, and would withdraw anything he had said to the contrary. He could not, however, understand what authority the promoters of this Bill had to bring it forward. The Royal Commission did not recommend the Bill. That body never recommended total Sunday closing, but said that although there might be a necessity for some further restriction n the hours of Sunday trading in the five exempted cities, public opinion did not justify total Sunday closing.

That was the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission, but members of the temperance party did not seem to realise it. There was a very remarkable conference called a few months ago at the instance of the ex-chief inspector of the Irish Constabulary, Sir Andrew Reid. He suggested what he called a round table conference at which all parties were to be present, but from which the publican party were excluded, although they suggested they ought to be present and protested against their exclusion. That seemed to point to the fact that there was some hostility to the members of the trade; at any rate they were left outside the conference. That conference, after some considerable discussion in the public Press, met and recommended that in the five large cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, the licensing authority should upon the requisition of not less than one-fourth of the people who had a right to vote under the franchise take a plebiscite upon the question of closing on Sunday together, of reducing the hours, and of changing the present hours. They did not recommend absolute, total, closing in the five exempted cities, but rather local option. This was not a Bill for local option, but for the total closing of the licensed houses in the five exempted cities, and, therefore, he said the proposal was based upon no semblance of authority cither in the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing or the Report of Sir Andrew Reid's Conference. He confessed that although he had protested against the insinuation, and sometimes the open allegation that Ireland was a particularly drunken country, still too much drunkenness prevailed in Ireland. He would like to put an end to that, because of the moral and material evils it brought in its train. But the only question for him was what was the best way of proceeding to attain that end. He did not believe that these extreme and fanatical proposals would ever accomplish it. His hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill had alluded to the failure of these devices in Scotland, but he would like to put a few figures to the House to show how complete the failure of the Sunday Closing Act had been in its operation in Glasgow. In the year 1904–5 the average number of arrests on Sundays in the five exempted cities in Ireland was twenty-nine. The total arrests for the year were only 1,531. In Glasgow from May 1st to October 17th, less than six months, there were apprehended for drunkenness in the vicinity of clubs— that was very significant—2,047. In the same period 154 persons were charged with hawking spirits in the streets, and there were fifteen prosecutions against bogus clubs and shebeening. That was to say, 1,531 arrests were made in the whole year in the five exempted cities of Ireland, against 2,047 in Glasgow in six months, yet the total population of the five exempted cities was 892,422, and the population in Glasgow was 760,450. Therefore if the Glasgow case showed anything it showed that total closing on Sunday, under which no opportunity was given for drinking legitimately in public houses led to drunkenness instead of preventing it. Those figures had greatly impressed him, and he would like to hear the answer to them. He was not a fanatical opponent of the Bill. He would like to be convinced by argument, but so far as he could see there was no answer to that argument. He would like to know also why the Bill had been introduced in the face of the finding of Sir Andrew Reid's Conference. He wondered whether it was because the Conference did not carry out the wishes of the extreme temperance reformers of Ireland, but that they nevertheless hoped to enforce their ideals by the aid of English and Scottish votes. The temperance party were, he thought, unwise in the efforts they were making for extreme temperance legislation. Until the last few years they had never been able to carry any Bill except those in which they had the aid of the public at large. Every extreme temperance proposal had been defeated in the House, but, on the other hand, since 1900 by pursuing a sensible and middle course they had obtained several measures of very great advantage to the real cause of temperance. He desired to urge upon the temperance party the fact that the proposals of a Bill like this were calculated to retard rather than to advance temperance reform. Even this session an effort to legislate further in this direction had been defeated, and he was informed that an offer was made in that case to an authorised agent of the temperance party to permit the Drink Bill, as it was termed last year, to go through this House on certain conditions. Why was that offer rejected? He would like to know that, because in his opinion the real object that was animating the so-called temperance reformers would be found to be not what they said but some unaccountable desire to be revenged on a trade with which they did not agree. These proposals were not likely to effect their end. His own view was that another road must be pursued, as another road had been found to be necessary in the State of Maine, where total prohibition was commenced. It was not so long ago since drunkenness was rife among the wealthy people of this country and of Scotland. He remembered reading in Dean Ramsay's memoirs that 100 years ago the Beach and the Bar went on circuit drunk and remained drunk until they returned, and that they kept an official whose business it was to loosen their neckties when they fell under the table. The Lord-Advocate was informed sufficiently to know that that was no invention of his own. What put an end to that state of things? Not Sunday closing, not Saturday closing, not shortening the hours in which drink might be obtained. It was because drunkenness became the reverse of repectable, so that it became a social crime to be drunk, and employers of labour refused to employ people of whose sobriety they had not the strongest guarantee. It was by some similar revulsion of feeling that the prevention of drunkenness in the humbler classes must be brought about. He thought it was a mistake to begin this experiment by making these extreme proposals apply to Ireland. If at all, why should they not begin with the centre of the Empire? Would such a proposal be carried for London, and if it was carried how would it work? He did not believe there was a single Member of the House who would guarantee that there would be less drunkenness or more self-righteousness if such a Bill were carried, nor could such a Bill be carried out in any of the large cities. And when they had, as in Dublin, a large part of the Sunday already closed against the consumption of drink on licensed premises, and when they had in the country districts licensed houses closed altogether on Sundays, he thought hon. Gentlemen before they voted for such a Bill as this against the weight of public opinion ought seriously to consider whether or not they had not with the present laws gone far enough in that direction. When temperance reformers said that such a Bill would have great effect in preventing the consumption of alcoholic liquor, that in some places it would decrease it by three-fourths and in others shop it altogether, the meaning of that was to his mind was that it would take away the trade of the publican. Although there might not be any harm in taking away the trade of the publican he did say that to deprive any man of his business without compensation was nothing more nor less than robbery. He reminded the House that in this matter the Irish publican stood in a much stronger position than the publican of England The law of England was that a licence could be refused any year. In Ireland it could not be refused. A legal decision existed in Ireland by which a licence must be renewed from year to year unless the applicant was a man of bad character. The effect of legislation of this character would be to deprive these people of their property which Parliament had given them a right to retain, and to do that was simple robbery, He begged to second the rejection of the Bill.

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 1 now' stand part of the Question."


said that before he proceeded to deal with the question itself, he desired to say a word with regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for North Dublin, that the publicans of Dublin were not allowed to take part in a conference held in that city to consider the question to which the Bill referred. He (Mr. Russell) wished to inform the hon. Member that he had himself felt so strongly that the publicans ought to have been summoned and given a part in that conference that he took no part in it himself, so that the hon. Gentleman and he did not differ on that point. He proposed to deal first with what might be called the history of this question. The Irish Sunday Closing Act was passed in 1878 after a fierce and prolonged struggle in the country and in that House. The Tory Party, which was then in power, was by no means favourable to legislation of this character, and during the progress of the Bill through Committee five large towns were exempted from its provisions. So that as the Act passed, Sunday closing was applied to the whole of the country except those five large towns. It was passed provisionally for five years. At the end of those years a proposal was made to renew the Act, and the friends of Sunday closing in the House then sought to include the five towns in the Bill. It was quite true that they had always been defeated in the House in making that proposal; but he thought the House ought to be told what had actually taken place. The Bill had not been defeated because the House had been opposed to its principle, but by the forms of the House which had always prevented the desire of the House being carried into effect. In the year 1888 the question came up again. For the first time he then moved and carried the Second Reading of a Bill to close public-houses on Saturdays at nine o'clock. That Bill and the Sunday Closing Bill were sent upstairs to a Select Committee presided over by the then Attorney-General for Ireland. That was a representative Committee, and it reported in favour of total Sunday closing in all Ireland, and in favour of early closing on Saturday. The Bill was defeated by time and by nothing else. What did the late Prime Minister say next session when it was brought in again? He had been strongly impressed by the agitation in the country when he was Chief Secretary, and when the Bill came up for discussion he said he had been told by Mr. Justice Madden, the Chairman of the Committee, that there was something approaching unanimity of public opinion in Ireland in favour of this legislation and under those circumstances he should support again in the lobby the opinion which both officially and unofficially he had held and supported for some years. That was the position taken up by the late Prime Minister, who had learned his lesson during the five years he had been Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was asked upon what authority the Bill was based. There was the authority of the Select Committee of that House. They had the Bill practically as it stood to-day sent down from Mr. Justice Madden's Select Committee. And they had the decision of the House in agreeing to the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford on May 12th, 1897, said that he had always been a strenuous supporter of the principle of Sunday Closing, but he was not clear that it would be practicable or wise to have total closing on Sundays in the large towns. The hon. and learned Member had also said that he did not know whether the present hours of opening were too long, though probably a case for shortening these hours might be made out, but if such a case were to be made out it must be done before the Licensing Commission, and the Bill should be postponed until Lord Peel's Commission reported. The Commission had now reported, and where did they stand? Let them take the constitution of that Commission. Upon it there were seven representatives of the trade, avowedly appointed as such, and a certain number of temperance representatives, and then there was a balancing number of what were called neutrals. That Commission heard the whole evidence from Ireland, including the evidence of police, distinguished citizens, bishops and priests. What did they report? There was a majority and a minority report. The minority, headed by Lord Peel, reported in favour of what was proposed in the Bill now before the House. The majority report was in favour of ten o'clock closing on Saturday and of lengthening the hours of closing on Sundays in the five large towns. They politely called bona fide travellers a nuisance and favoured legislation for amending that part of the law. He was asked what authority this Bill had. It was founded upon the report of a Select Committee of this House, upon decisions on the Second Reading and upon Lord Peel's Commission, because whatever section of the Report they considered it would be seen chat they were not satisfied with the exist ingstate of things. That was the authority upon which this Bill was based. They did not, however, stand upon that authority alone. What about public opinion in Ireland? Hon. Members said there was no authority for this Bill, but he would like to ask what authority was there for the opposition to this measure except that which emanated from the licensed liquor trade? Was there a bishop from any part of Ireland against the Bill? Was there a Resolution against it from any public body whatever?


Can the hon. Gentleman show a single Resolution in favour of the Bill from any public body in Ireland?


replied that he had not got any such Resolution, but that was not because the Bill was not favoured by public bodies in Ireland, but because it was not known that the Bill was coming on that day. It was down third on the Order Paper, but the two Bills which held places before it had been withdrawn. He could say without hesitation that he had never known during his forty years experience of public life in Ireland a single body, apart from the licensed liquor trade, that was prepared to fight this question.


There have been public meetings against it in Phœnix Park and also Resolutions passed by the Trades Councils in Dublin.


said that hon. Members opposite in opposing this Bill had no large consensus of public opinion behind them except that which was engineered by the licensed liquor trade. The conference in Dublin which had been referred to consisted of delegates from different parts of Ireland, and they were all convinced that if nothing was done in this matter the drink traffic would do very serious damage to Ireland. He had never said that the people of Ireland drank more than the people of England or Scotland, because per head of the population they drank less. It should not, however, be overlooked that the people of England and Scotland drank out of their abundance whilst the people of Ireland drank out of their poverty. Emigration was depleting the population in Ireland and lunacy was increasing at a pace that was causing thoughtful men to tremble. What was the testimony of Dr. Connolly Worman, the resident medical superintendent of the Richmond Asylum? He said that but for delirium tremens there would be no necessity to enlarge that asylum. The drink system was undermining and aggravating every evil in Ireland. Because a powerful trade was organised in every Irish town and village, were the representatives of the Irish people to stand by and do nothing? Hon. Members opposite professed that they were entirely in favour of temperance, but the difference between those who were temperance men and those who said they were was that the former tried to do something and the latter opposed everything. Let them take the Temperance Conference in Dublin Would any hon. Member say that this was a question upon which the Churches in Ireland had no right to intervene? Were they ready to take up that position? This was pre-eminently a question for the Churches, because it was largely a question of morals. Drink was degrading and ruining the people of Ireland. What was the position of the Churches? Could any Nationalist Member get up and say that they had the sanction of a single bishop, priest, or minister in the whole of Ireland for opposing temperance legislation? They could not say that. Archbishop Walsh and Cardinal Logue hesitated about supporting legislation of this kind in the past until the clubs could be controlled, but both those distinguished prelates now took the ground that as clubs were under control, legislation was necessary to deal with this appalling evil. They had been told that they ought to wait until there was a Legislature in Ireland to deal with this question. Could Nationalist Members point to another single question upon which they had said that? In regard to land and labour and education, they were ready to trust this House, but immediately they came to the liquor traffic they desired to leave it to a Home Rule Parliament. Were hon. Members serious in makng that proposal? They could not pick and choose and say one question was to be settled in Ireland and all other questions in this Parliament. They had behind them the weight of the whole of the churches in Ireland in favour of this proposal. Would Members opposite affirm that the Gaelic League was in favour of the drink party? He was glad to say that that League was one of the strongest temperance influences in Ireland and it was making a powerful impression upon the people. They had all the moral influences on their side in Ireland, and the only people against them were a band of drink-sellers fighting for their own hand and their own interest. Was this Bill a reasonable measure? There had been a great change of opinion in Ireland. The bona-fide traveller had become such a stupendous nuisance that people everywhere were prepared to abolish him right away without any consideration whatever. Men who disliked Sunday closing had, in view of the great nuisance of the bona-fide traveller, come to demand this. All round the large towns Sunday was turned into a pandemonium by the bona fide traveller. Property in Black Rock, Dundrum, and all the suburbs had been depreciated, and the effect of that pandemonium had been to make a great impression. People were in favour of this proposal who were not in favour of it when the fight took place in 1878. But since then the trade had organised, and in every village and town in Ireland there was a trade political association which openly asserted that its trade was its politics. They came at the last election to him of all men in the world. They desired to pledge him against all this. Well, he need not tell the House what answer he gave. At all events other men gave way, and it was no secret that that trade organisation was coercing many politicians in Ireland to do that which they did not wish to do. That showed the change that had taken place in public opinion. There were two kinds of opposition to this Bill. There was the kind of opposition which said boldly that such legislation tyrannical, and they would not have it. But there were also other men who said the Bill went too far. So far as the first class was concerned, he believed it was the duty of the State to make it easy to do right. At 9 o'clock on Saturday night the marketing in those big towns was practically over, and they did not think it was a proper preparation for the Sunday to have those orgies. Lord Peel's Committee had recommended that the hours should be shortened. To close the public-houses only at ten would be a great step forward. But those who took a stand against the Bill, because it was trying on Ireland what would not be tolerated in England and Scotland, could not be listened to. And though most of their opponents were prepared to say that they were willing to treat with them on the question of hours, that was a matter for Committee and not for opposition on Second Reading. If he might go back to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, why did he persist in saying that he objected to Ireland being experimented on? Scotland had had this legislation for fifty years. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: With what result?] That was not the question. He was dealing with the question of an experiment, and they were not making an experiment on Ireland that had not been tried in other parts of the King's dominions. And whatever might be the result, one strong fact stood out, that there had never been from either Scotland or Wales a Member bold enough to propose to repeal those Acts. He thought that spoke very strongly for the actual result. That disposed of the argument about an experiment. Then the hon. Member for College Green had said the working men had no habitable home to go to. Did the hon. Member imagine that a man guzzling and drinking in a public-house up to eleven o'clock on Saturday night was the way to secure a habitable home either for himself or his family? Did not the hon. Member know that thousands of homes might be happy but for this very guzzling and drinking? Then the hon. Member said he wished the working men to have opportunities of obtaining fresh air. But what kind of atmosphere was found in a public-house from nine to eleven o'clock on a Saturday night? Would his hon. friend consider the situation? Both his hon. friend and he knew something about this subject. They knew what they were talking about. He had gone on tours of inspection. Fresh air! Why, the atmosphere of these places was perfectly fœtid. It was not at such places that a workman or any other man would get fresh air, and the moral atmosphere was as bad as the physical.


said his point was that if a working man wished to take a walk on Saturday night he was entitled to get refreshments if he wanted them.


asked whether his hon. friend thought that a workman could not take a walk without tumbling into a public-house between nine and eleven o'clock on a Saturday night. His hon. friend had quoted the Irish Times. That might have been very well for the House of Commons if no Irish Members had been here. The Irish Times was until quite recently the property of Sir John Arnott, one of the biggest brewers in Ireland, and even now that it was a limited company he was the largest shareholder. Why did not the hon. Gentleman quote the Daily Express, which was owned by Lord Ardilaun? What was the use of quoting those who had a vested interest in the perpetuation of this iniquitous business? His hon. friend must really re-cast his arguments. They had done duty before, and were out of date. Let them take the question of clubs. What was the use of quoting the Irish Times of a date prior to the passing of the Clubs Act about a nuisance that had been dealt with by law and abated? His hon. friend must really get up this question afresh. These old arguments; would not do. They had been blown out of the water dozens of times. The hon. Member for North Dublin was wiser. His arguments were of a totally different character, though equally fallacious. The hon. Member for North Dublin thought that they could not possibly shorten the hours of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays or other days without giving the publican com- pensation, and he pointed out with; perfect truth that the Clitheroe decision in Ireland had given the publican a vested interest which he had not before possessed. But it was an entirely new I doctrine in this House or anywhere else to say that a trade which existed for the public convenience, and the hours of which were regulated by Parliament, was not subject to change or alteration. That was a perfectly impossible doctrine to propound in this House, and therefore as in the past so in the future, if Parliament thought it necessary to reduce the hours on Saturday or Sunday the publican's claim to compensation was absolutely non-existent. They were dealing with a new House of Commons, and I he ventured to think they were dealing I with a new House that would not be unfriendly. He had not the slightest connection with any temperance organisation in Ireland, and he was not speaking in their name or for them; but he was speaking as one who had been in this fight for forty years, and he was fulfilling the mandate of a great constituency I in dealing with this question as he was to-day. He appealed to this House to save his hon. friends opposite from themselves. Just let them imagine what drink was doing in Ireland and everywhere else. Let them think of the poor farmers of Ireland on market day, which generally was Saturday. They went into the towns, and sold their little produce, afterwards meeting one friend after another and spending the money they could not afford in the public-house—money that ought to go to their homes and wives, and the welfare of their children. Crime often followed as a result. He appealed to this House again for a chance for this Bill. He pleaded with the House of Commons to-day to give them a chance. He had fought for land reform and other reforms for Ireland quite as heartily as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he said unhesitatingly now that if the publican was to get what the landlord had been deprived of, if the benefit of the reduction of rent was to go to the public-house and not to the home of the farmer, then land reform might be looked on from different standpoints. He had great hopes for Ireland, for a new life was stirring this whole country. The Gaelic League of which he had spoken was bringing that, life to fruition. He implored the House to give Ireland a helping hand to-day to get rid of these dreadful temptations against which the strongest human nature was often powerless, and against which such human nature as existed in Ireland, free, generous and hospitable, was wholly unable to cope.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin Harbour)

said the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was not so much an argument for Sunday closing and early closing on Saturday night as an argument for the total prohibition of the sale of drink in all houses in Ireland; and the same might be said of all the arguments advanced in support of the Bill. If Irishmen were so weak that they could not resist the temptation offered by the open door of a public-house at nine or ten o'clock, then the evil and the danger were just the same at two, three or six o'clock in the day. If Parliament made up its mind that there must be total prohibition, not in Ireland alone, but in the whole of the United Kingdom, they would t have a direct issue to face. He doubted very much if Parliament was going to face that issue in the near future. What was the justification for legislation of this kind? It was simply that drink was abused, and that some men became drunk, but he failed to see in that an argument for exceptional legislation. From beginning to end of the discussion to-day there had not been a single allegation that drunkenness was on the increase in Ireland, or that the condition of things in the towns and rural districts of Ireland was exceptional as compared with the towns and rural districts of other parts of the United Kingdom. Even though the majority of the people in the towns of Ireland were in favour of this legislation, he would regard it as an act of tyranny on the part of the majority to prevent a man from taking the refreshment he was entitled to take so long as he did not abuse the privilege. Legislation for the regulation of the liquor traffic had gone so far that in Dublin the time of the police was largely occupied, not merely in dealing with cases of drunkenness, but in making visits practically every evening to licensed premises. The way in which the law was carried out was in itself a very strong inducement to the people in Ireland not to put more power in the hands of the police. The law in this matter, which was originally intended to be useful, had become oppressive. He had been a teetotaler all his life, but he did not see why this attempt should be made by Act of Parliament to impose oppressive terms on those who did not agree with what was now proposed. Temperance societies were making enormous progress in Ireland, but it would appear that those who preached temperance were not content with the excellent work which was being done. If working men living in the large towns wanted drink on Sunday they could get it by sending out for it. Under this Bill it would be necessary to get it in the night before, and if that was done the chances were that it would not last till Sunday. This would place working men at a disadvantage as compared with people who lived in opulence and had cellars of their own. The hon. Member for South Belfast had stated that working men who were paid on Friday did not return to work in some cases till Tuesday. That seemed to be an argument in favour of closing public-houses, not only on Sunday, but on Monday morning as well. It was true that some workers were paid on Friday night, or early on Saturday, but there were a large number of people in the city of Dublin who could not do their marketing till after eight o'clock on Saturday. If it was the fact that drunkenness was largely diminishing, why should these people be subjected to the inconvenience which this Bill would impose? He believed in advancing the cause of temperance by appealing to the reason and commonsense of the people, and he believed further that certain legislative efforts were calculated to make the cause of temperance distasteful and objectionable to those who desired to see an improvement brought about in the habits of the people.


said he trusted he would find himself one of the majority in favour of this Bill. He considered it a very good measure. There was hardly a line in it which would require amendment or improvement in Committee.

The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour appeared to consider that working men would be. greatly wronged by the deprivation of the privilege of Sunday drinking in the five excepted cities. He had not heard that the working men in the other parts of Ireland had objected to Sunday closing. In the other towns, and in the rural parts of Ireland, so far as his observation had gone, Sunday closing had been a very great success. Sunday was now all over the country a day of sobriety and tranquillity, except in the excepted cities. As a citizen of Dublin, one of the excepted cities, he ardently wished to see that Sunday tranquillity extended to the metropolis, and also to the other excepted cities. The hon. Member for Dublin County North had suggested that it would be unjust to deprive the Irish publican of his Sunday trade without compensation. Owing to a decision, the correctness of which was the subject of some doubt, the Irish publican had got into a position which the English publicans did not enjoy. By the decision in Clitheroe's case it was held that an Irish publican was entitled to a renewal of his licence unless he had been guilty of some misconduct in the carrying on of his business, or unless some exception could be taken to his character. That had come to be the accepted law in Ireland, because no one had taken an appeal to the House of Lords. He believed that if an appeal were taken to the House of Lords, the law in Ireland would be restored to uniformity with that of England on the basis of the judgment given in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield. Assuming, however, that the Irish publicans were in a better position than the English publicans was it not rather late in the day to suggest that the Irish publicans could not be deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation, when they considered that the publicans not in the excepted cities had been deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation? If they could be deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation, why should the publicans, in the five excepted cities, be treated differently from those all over the country? The liquor trade was highly organised and powerful, with its headquarters in Dublin, and it was always able to secure a certain amount of support, owing to that organisation, from some of the Members for the City of Dublin. But Members from other parts of Ireland, who were able to express the views of their constituents, and not the views of the Licensed Victuallers Association, were practically unanimous in favour of the provision to get rid of the exemption of the five cities. He thought the other part of the Bill which provided for the restricting of the, trade on Saturday night to nine o'clock was even more beneficial because it was a more general proposal. He had heard the argument as to the convenience of working men engaged in marketing. There was nothing in the Bill which proposed to close the shops of butchers, bakers, and other trademen where in the ordinary sense marketing was usually carried on. He thought it would be a very good thing indeed for all classes, if it was necessary to do marketing late on Saturday night, that they should do it in shops which did not lend themselves to the sale of drink. He had received a communication stating that there were a number of shops where licences were held which would be seriously inconvenienced in their business, outside of the drink trade, if this Bill were passed. He knew that from a mistaken policy, in the past, licences had been granted to shops where hardware, agricultural implements, or drapery goods were sold in country towns. He thought it would be one of the most beneficial effects of the Bill if it hampered these shops in their trade. Of all classes of public-houses those were the most dangerous, because people went in, it might be, for the purpose of buying drapery goods, but, finding a spirit counter in the place, they were tempted to drink. The objection formerly taken to Sunday closing, and to the restriction of the hours of public houses on Saturday, that clubs would be multiplied, did not now hold good, for all clubs where drink was sold in Ireland had now to be registered and licensed. It was very well known that if a club was carried on merely for the purpose of supplying drink, the justices would not renew the licence. The third portion of the Bill dealt with the bona fide traveller. A bona fide traveller was understood to be one who drank to travel, but in practice he was found to be one who travelled to drink. The limit of three miles seemed to be absolutely absurd in these days of bicycles and motor cars. The result of the three mile limit had been, as the Lord Mayor of Dublin had pointed out, to cause great inconvenience and demoralisation in little towns near the large excepted cities. The present Bill made a very beneficial change in increasing the limit to seven miles. It also contained the even more useful provision of providing a sort of test as to whether a person was really taking a refreshment of an alcoholic character for the purpose of travelling, or merely for the sake of drinking. It was proposed that no person claiming to be a bona fide traveller "shall be served with intoxicating liquor unless he at the same time orders and pays for a meal." These words might require amending in Committee, for some might consider that a few biscuits constituted a meal. This proposal might he amended by providing that the value of the meal ordered should at least be equal to the value of the drink ordered. This Bill would, he hoped, deliver Dublin from the abominable drinking that went on, and enable working men to carry home a greater proportion of their wages on Saturday when they were not tempted at night to go into the gin palaces of the city. The hon. Member for Dublin County North had referred to the case of Glasgow, but it was probable that a great deal of drunkenness there arose from "bona fide travellers" going out by tram cars from the area where the sale of drink was forbidden to places where they could get a quantity of drink. Then they were arrested for drunkenness. If the law in Scotland were amended that phase of Sunday drinking would soon pass away. The passing of this Bill would have the effect of making places in the neighbourhood of the large towns of Ireland as sober and tranquil on Sunday as other parts of the country.

MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)

said he strongly supported the Motion for the rejection of this measure. If anything were required to convince him of the correctness of that attitude, it would the eloquent but inconclusive speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He indignantly and respectfully repudiated the suggestion of the mover of the Bill that anybody who opposed it did so in the interest of the licensed victuallers. He might as well suggest that those who supported the Bill were acting in the interest of the manufacturers of lemonade and ginger-pop, and other equally unwholesome and indigestible beverages. He regarded the Bill as a most lamentable illustration of the worst form of class legislation. He might characterise the Bill as a drunkards' Bill, because so far from minimising the evils of intemperance it presented every characteristic that would tend in the opposite direction. The arguments of the hon. Member for South Tyrone in favour of the Bill had fully convinced him of the soundness of his opposition to it. That hon. Member had ascribed the increase of lunacy, emigration, and consumption to drink. He would suggest to the House that if they wanted to diminish lunacy they should hesitate to pass legislation, which would make Ireland a country that, especially on Sunday, would be calculated to drive nine men in every ten out of their minds. In regard to emigration he would suggest that to prevent a man after walking seven miles getting a glass of beer, would be to justify such a man in seeking the more hospitable shores of a more civilised country. As to consumption, would it tend to lessen this scourge if men were discouraged from seeking fresh air on Sundays? The hon. Member for South Tyrone had also said that this matter was preeminently for the churches and for morals. He entirely agreed, and consequently maintained that it was not a question for this House. The hon. Gentleman stated that no bishop, priest, or minister in Ireland was opposed to the Bill, but the explanation might be that their churches and temples—he made this suggestion without disrespect—would be less deserted than they were now if people were prevented from taking their country walks and their bicycle rides. What the sponsors of this Bill wanted to do was to say that no man should have intoxicating liquor. Some day, if this sort of legislation became fashonable, the House of Commons would say that no man would be allowed to eat meat—which to his mind was a practice more degrading than drinking alcohol and led to greater crime. He made himself responsible for the statement that wherever this coercive legislation had been tried, it had never yet succeeded in diminishing the total consumption of alcoholic drinks. They had heard a great deal of the prohibition State of Maine; but there was the story of an English traveller who was going through that State, and asked a station-master if there was not one place in the whole of the State where he could get a drink. The station-master, pointing to a little house, replied— That is the only place where you cannot get it. The real spirit of the sponsors of this measure was that displayed in a conversation between Herbert Spencer and a Mohammedan as to what was the greatest sin in the world. The Mohammedan said the drink habit. Herbert Spencer asked his Mohammedan friend whether murder, outrage, and other crimes were not sins, to which the Mohammedan replied that he believed they might be, but that God was merciful! As to the Bill itself, the first provision, for practical purposes, decided that the public-houses were to be closed on Sundays. But why on Sunday? Because Sunday was the only day on which the working man—and this Bill did not interfere with the liberties of any other class—had time to visit his club, and it was infamous that it should be his only club. Then another clause provided that the public-houses were to be closed at nine o'clock on Saturday evenings. Why nine o'clock? Why not in the afternoon? It was admitted that many working men in Ireland as well as in England were not in a position to do their marketing before nine o'clock; and surely they ought to have the opportunity when shopping with their wives to go into a public -house and have some refreshment. Did the hon. member for South Tyrone suggest that by nine o'clock the working man had got as much drink as was good for him? Some hon. Members had spoken of the poor barmen who went to work at seven o'clock in the morning and were kept at it until eleven o'clock at night or after. Well, if the barmen were public spirited they would join their trade union, and if there was not a barmen's trade union, they should start one. Then he came to the clause about bona fidetravelers and he was astounded and alarmed that any Member of Parliament should say that that provision was reasonable. For a bona fide traveller could not get a glass of beer—except under what conditions? First of all, he must prove that he had walked seven miles—there was no direction in the Bill as to how the seven miles were to be measured—and then he must write his name in the book which was to be kept open for all time to the inspection of the police and the magistrates. Talk about the Crimes Act in Ireland There had never been any provision in any Cœrcion Acts so drastic, so retrograde, so barbarous as that. No man was to have an honest glass of beer without not only walking fourteen miles, but being branded as a semi-criminal—as a man who had transgressed the moral land of the law. He ventured to maintain that that was a proposal which even this House of Commons, with all its virtue, would hesitate to place on the Statute Book. However, that was not all. Even if a man had proved that he had travelled seven miles, and had signed his name, and shown his vaccination marks, and all the rest of it, he must, whether he wanted it or not, "partake of a meal." There was no interpretation clause in the Bill as to what was a meal. He asked whether it was conducive to public honesty that they should make a thirsty man pretend, that he was hungry and go through the farce of purchasing some hybrid burlesque of a meal in order to get a drink? This Bill was a burlesque of social legislation.


Your speech is a burlesque.

MR. CREAN (Cork, S.E.)

Mr. Speaker, is it in order when one hon. Member is addressing the House for another hon.. Member to say that his speech is a burlesque?


That depends, I think, upon the spirit in which the phrase is used.


The hon. Member, in dealing with a question which many of us regard as a very serious matter, described it as a burlesque. I described his speech as a burlesque of a speech—a very bad burlesque.


said that a bad burlesque meant something that was too serious. He was as profoundly serious in this matter as the hon. Member for East Clare; but everything in this world had its comic aspect. He was almost a teetotaller himself, had had a great deal to do with working men, and was as profoundly interested in checking the drink evil as anyone else. He considered that this Bill would tend to create evils which its supporters did not realise. He contended seriously that this kind of legislation would have the tendency to drive men to drink indoors. It was no good driving an evil out of sight, and thinking that it had been done away with. He insisted that no legislation of this kind had ever resulted in the less consumption of alcoholic drink. It was class legislation in its worst form; it was contrary to every principle of freedom and liberty for the individual which he understood to be the foundation of the political creed which he was returned to this House to support.

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said that all the Unionist and he thought almost all the Nationalist constituencies in Ireland were in favour of this Bill. The arguments they had heard to-day against the Bill seemed to him to be arguments in favour of prohibiting and interfering with the drink traffic altogether. The whole history of legislation in connection with the drink traffic had been one of control and restriction, and of control and restriction in the interests of the public—not in the interests of the trade—whose interests were far more important to be considered by the House of Commons than those of any trade however great. There was one great matter to be considered in dealing with this subject. The House of Commons had by legislation approved of the principle of closing public-houses in Ireland on Sunday, and the only bearing of this Bill was to extend its provisions to the towns exempted at that time. Large towns such as Derry and others were not exempted, and no one who represented those towns or was interested in their welfare had come to that House and asked the extension of the exemption which was given to the other five cities in Ireland. They had in Ireland this state of affairs. Parliament had said that it was the right thing to prohibit the sale of drink in Ireland on Sunday and had merely exempted these cities because they desired to wait to see how it worked out. They in Ireland had had an opportunity of comparing the two systems, and he was expressing, the opinions of the vast majority of the Irish people when he said that this exemption should be withdrawn, and that the time had arrived when those cities should be brought into line with the rest of the country. They would suffer no hardship from this, and he was surprised to hear what an hon. Member had said in reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone regarding the attitude of the Churches in the matter. Was not this question one on which the ministers of religion and the heads of the Churches and those who took an interest in the welfare of the community were entitled to be heard? They had expressed their opinion in no uncertain manner and they were all agreed on this question, even those who were not extreme temperance reformers. Men who did not wish to restrict people who wished to have drink were all in favour of this Sunday closing. In England people were more accustomed to seeing what did not occur in Ireland—the working men getting their beer in jugs for dinner on Sunday. Only to a very small extent did that exist in Ireland. Working men in Ireland if they wished to obtain beer got it in bottles. That being so, there was no real hardship on men who wanted beer with their dinner. When the public-houses were open men were tempted to go in and indulge in drink instead of going out to the country to get fresh air. They spent their afternoons in the public-houses, doing themselves and their families an incalculable injury. Then came the case of the bona fide travellers. Parliament in providing for the bona fide traveller and legislating in this matter wanted to make the legislation effective, but at the same time it said that if a man had travelled three miles the probabilities were that that man was honestly going about his business, doing his work, moving from one place to another, and therefore he might reasonably get refreshment because he did not travel merely for the purpose of getting a drink. What had this been turned to? Everybody in Ireland knew that the great thing for a publican to do was to get a public-house just three miles outside a big city, because every Sunday afternoon men went out there—not as bona fide travellers or for recreation, but simply in search of drink. That was what the bona fide traveller question had come to in Ireland, and those who had observed that knew that the only way of dealing with it was to make a real test of the bona fide traveller and not a sham test as it was at present. As it was now a man had only to walk or go three miles and he was entitled to a drink. Three miles was nothing in these days of bicycles and other conveyances. It was a very short walk on a Sunday afternoon, but it was some test for a man to have to go seven miles as the Bill proposed. Members might throw ridicule upon this proposal and refer to it as legislation run wild, but they had only to bring it back to the test of common sense and experience. An amendment of the law regarding bona fide travellers was necessary, and those who administered the law in the great cities of Ireland—the resident and the police magistrates—endorsed the view that "this change from three miles to seven was necessary, and would be a beneficial arrangement. Why should a man object if he was a bona fide traveller to putting his name and address in a book? He had nothing to complain about, and it would be a protection to the publican. They were trying to deal with a great evil, and they were not to be deterred from their purpose by mere imaginary and groundless alarm as to the injury it would do a man to put his name and address in a book. There might be someone in the House who could suggest a better means of ensuring the bona fide of travellers than those proposed in the Bill. Then there was the question of Saturday closing. It was said why did they not close them wholly. That would be an unreasonable proposal. No one wanted to be unreasonable, and the suggestion put forward in the Bill was to close public houses at nine o'clock. A grave evil in the large cities was that working men when they got their money and went out to buy provisions and other things for their families on Saturday evening, got into a public house and might stay there until eleven o'clock drinking away the money that ought to go to provide food for their children. It was not an unreasonable thing to curtail by two hours the time during which a man could go to a public house. No one wanted to prevent working men or any other men having reasonable facilities for refreshments or to say that they should not have a glass of beer; but there was no doubt that drink was a temptation even to men who were not viciously inclined, and he did not want to put too many opportunities in their way to spend their money in drink. Who was there who knew anything about life in the great cities of Ireland, and even in the small towns, who would suggest that by nine o'clock all facilities for shopping were not over? He did not think there was any hardship whatever in saying to a grocer or draper, if he chose to have a spirit licence, and unless he kept the two things separate, he must close at nine o'clock. If he wanted to get rid of one of his shops he could do so. This was not tyrranical legislation. Every one of those arguments about the interference with working men were brought up when first Sunday closing was introduced. They would always be brought up when any attempt was made to restrict licensing trade, or indeed any trade. Parliament had, by the Factory Acts, imposed certain restrictions of trade. This was a question of great importance to the social life of the community, and he was perfectly satisfied that the House would not be deterred from passing the Bill by arguments of the kind they had heard that night.


said he had read this Bill and he thought there was something to be said in its favour, and a great deal to be said in its disfavour. It was the fact that all commercial pursuits were in a state of suspension on one day of the week and it occurred to him that the selling of liquors ought not to be made an exception. But he saw nothing else in favour of the Bill. It did not do away with the bona fide traveller arrangement, but still left it possible for a man who did not mind giving out seven or ten miles from a large town to get an overload of alcohol. He would take a concrete case. What was to prevent the bona fide traveller from Belfast visiting Bangor, Newcastle, or Donaghadee? There was no doubt that people went to a town some miles off and took an overload of drink because they knew no way of getting small supplies as they wanted them. This Bill proposed that all that sort of thing should continue; therefore he objected to it. He thought, moreover, that the Bill would encourage shebeening, and he thought it was infinitely worse to have to resort to an arrangement of that kind than to go to a public house and get an ordinary drink. He believed that it would be dangerous to the cause of morality to shut up public houses altogether on Sunday, and he thought that there should be a certain period of the day when those who were accustomed to get their liquor should go and get it and should not be driven to making secret arrangements to secure it, or to frequenting clubs where there was a great deal of card-playing, gambling and other vicious amusements going on. Ten years ago he sat upon a Royal Commission which for three years examined into the licensing question and heard the evidence of upwards of 300 witnesses. That Licensing Commission exhausted the whole field of debate and considered all the subjects which were raised by this Bill, and their decision was that the present system of Sunday closing should not be stopped. Their report was to the effect that local public opinion did not justify them in recommending complete Sunday closing in the five exempted cities in Ireland. He gathered, however, from the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that he did no I think that that was the result of the report of the Commission, but it was the fact. It was also perfectly true that eight teetotalers brought up a minority report, but the report which he had quoted was the report of the majority. The fact was that this Licensing Commission consisted of eight men connected with the trade, eight teetotallers and eight neutrals, and the majority came to the conclusion that it would be a dangerous thing to close the houses altogether on Sunday. He therefore took objection to this measure and hoped it would not become an Act this session. He really felt that upon the whole it should not be read a second time. Certainly a similar measure would be rejected in England and he thought that the vast majority of the people of Ireland, notwithstanding what had been said, were in favour of opening the houses on Sunday in order to avoid greater dangers. It was a very singular thing that a trade which was under Government control—in fact, a trade which was a child of the Government, like that of the licensed victualler —should from time to time be made the subject of so many unwarrantable attacks upon those who were carrying on their business in a legitimate manner under the sanction of Parliament. He felt that he could speak disinterestedly on this subject, as he had no connection with the Irish trade, and because of his connection with the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws, and he did think that when a properly constituted Commission arrived at the conclusion that no change was necessary, a Bill of this kind should not be brought forward. He therefore hoped the House would reject it, and he would close his observations by saying that he intended to go into the lobby against it.

MR. S. COLLINS (Lambeth, Kennington)

said he ventured to offer a few remarks in the House for the first time. The hon. Member who spoke as representing a London constituency had opposed the Bill, but he ventured as another London Member to give his earnest support to it. They ought not, he thought, to look upon this measure altogether as a teetotal question or a temperance question. He considered that it was a citizens' question, a national question, and a question for the whole of the people of this country to consider and deal with. He could assure their friends who were opposing the Bill that those who supported it did not take credit for being the possessors of all the virtues. They trusted and believed that there were many people, who were not abstainers but who were as anxious for the sobriety of the people as any temperance people. If temperance people gave very special attention to this subject why was it? It was because those who opposed these measures did not apprehend their anxiety to see the conditions of the people of this country bettered. A great deal had been said about facilities being given to the working man to get his beer. It was said that if they closed up all the public houses he could not get his beer as the rich man could, because the latter could go to his cellar and obtain it when he liked but in these days there were so many commodities which were bottled and preserved that he thought that beer and spirits could be obtained bottled by the working man just as easily as he could obtain them from a public house. If a man wanted his pint of beer or stout he could buy it at a grocers' or an off-licensed house just as readily as he could buy it from a public house. He could always have his bottle of beer in the house and enjoy it on the Sunday without going to the public house. He thought that argument was of a most fallacious character. The question must be looked at from another point of view. Scotland and Wales had been referred to. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin had said, however, that they were experimenting on Ireland; but that was not the case, because the whole experience went to show that where Sunday closing had been tried it had been a great success. Since Sunday closing had been instituted in Wales the state of things had been largely improved. Sunday, he would not say, was sacred to the people, but it was the day of rest for the people. Sunday throughout Great Britain and Ireland was reckoned to be the great day for the common people, and he thought it would be a bad day for England and Ireland when, the public houses being kept open, such a condition of things was established that the people could not rest on Sunday. A few days ago, a great meeting was held in London on this very subject, comprising members not only of the Anglican Church, of the Roman Catholic Church, but of members of all denominations; and the meeting was held to see what could be done to bring about a better condition of things in this country, so that Sunday might be held dearer by the people. If they carried out this Sunday closing, they would do much which would enable the working man to rise to greater heights. A question had been raised about the detriment which would be inflicted upon the barmen if this Bill were agreed to; but he thought that they ought not only to have consideration for the barmen, but also for the publicans and for their wives and families; and he believed that if a census were taken the majority of publicans and those engaged in the trade would vote for Sunday closing. If, moreover, they were to have sympathy with the barmen they ought also to have sympathy with the barmaids, especially as some of these toiled from 70 to 100 hours per week. He was sorry that so many of his friends from Ireland had risen in their places to oppose the Bill. He had always watched Ireland with interest and had sympathised with the aspirations of the people for their uplifting, and he thought that if those who opposed the Bill to-day would only go into the lobby in its favour they would do something to advance the cause of the people and to make Ireland what they were all anxious it should be, a happy, prosperous and contented country.

MR. A. ROCHE (Cork)

said he had listened with a great deal of interest to the debate, and he wished to deny the assertion that the Irish people were drunkards. In saying this he wished it to be understood that he had not only experience of the City of Cork but of the South of Ireland; and he could bear testimony to the fact that except upon special occasions, such as fair days, the Irish people were the most sober people in the world. Outside that, and the markets once a month, he could testify that there could not be found a more sober class of people than the class among which he lived in the South of Ireland. It was said that there were certain figures showing that the majority of the people were in favour of this legislation. He could only speak for the people of Cork, and he absolutely denied that. So far as they were concerned he was convinced that the people of Cork did not want the Bill. He had always been in favour of temperance, and had always thought that there was nothing so degrading as intemperance. But in his opinion the Bill would only lead to evil results. He knew a good many of these clubs in Cork, and he asserted that if this Sunday Closing Bill was passed for the City of Cork the clubs would increase, and the young men would frequent them and drink a great deal more than if the public-houses were open. That was his deliberate opinion He had served his city in every elective capacity, and he had had opportunities of judging of the habits of the people and could testify not only to the temperate habits of the people of Cork but of the people of the South of Ireland generally. He asserted that if this Bill were passed it would have quite the contrary effect to what hon. Members intended. He agreed with what Charles Stewart Parnell said— Such social questions as this could be more properly dealt with by an Irish Parliament. It was quite possible that within a short period a measure of Home Rule would be extended to Ireland, and he knew of no question which could be more properly dealt with in Dublin than this. He appealed to the House not to pass this Bill.

MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)

said that although it had been suggested that this important question might usefully be left to an Irish Parliament to deal with he intended to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because he was certain that Ireland was ripe for such legislation. There were some Amendments which would have to be made, but he hoped the Bill would with the assistance of the Government pass this year and take its place upon the Statute - book. He associated himself with all that had been said as to the sobriety of the people of Ireland. There had been a remarkable diminution of drunkenness in recent years. He lived in an important market town, and it was impossible not to observe a very remarkable falling off in the trade done by local public houses. Indeed, he felt able to assure the House that there were very few of the public houses in the town which were profitable to their owners. That fact had been evidenced by the great difficulty that was experienced in selling these houses when they came to change hands. That tended to show conclusively that drunkenness had diminished in Ireland, and they all rejoiced that that was the fact. As to Sunday travellers, he did not think that in many districts these were very numerous; in point of fact, they were rapidly becoming a thing of the past. It might be said that that was a good argument for not touching legislation in respect to Sunday travellers, but his opinion was that more difficulties should be placed in the way of such travellers. As to early closing on Saturdays, he was afraid that if public houses were closed so early as nine o'clock, there might be an increase in the number of what were termed bogus clubs. That was a real and very possible danger. He agreed with those who preferred a well-managed public house to a bogus club. He suggested, therefore, that in Committee it would be expedient to amend the measure in the way of not making it quite so drastic. The possibility was that if they began by closing public houses at ten o'clock instead of nine they might obviate that danger, and have more chance of carrying the Bill. He remembered that years ago legislation was passed in Canada requiring the closing of public-houses and hotels at seven o'clock on Saturday nights. The result of that very drastic legislation was a large increase in the illicit sale of liquor on Saturday evenings. Scotland had the same difficulty, but owing to stringent legislation passed in the last Parliament bogus clubs had been largely wiped out. Ireland was ripe for this measure. He trusted, therefore, that it would pass its Second Reading stage, and that the Government would facilitiate its passage so that it might be placed on the Statute-book this session.

MR. FINDLAY (Lanarkshire, N.E.)

said he desired to take up only a few minutes of the time of the House. He intervened in the discussion because Scotland had been held up as "the frightful example" of the result of Sunday closing, and he feared that such allusions as had been made might convey an erroneous impression. In the industrial district round Glasgow, they had more than once shortened the hours of public-houses, and the result had been that many workmen who were in the habit of losing a morning through the public-houses being open till eleven o'clock had since the ten o'clock rule had come into force done nothing of the sort. A very great improvement had been noticed in that regard. In Scotland they had had Sunday closing for half a century. In his town there were some years ago six hotels which had the Sunday licence and such a nuisance did they become that the public themselves insisted upon their being closed on Sunday, and that was done with very great benefit to the town. He was satisfied that if they could get a plébiscite of the people of Scotland the votes would be ten to one in favour of Sunday closing. With regard to this question he was confident that the working men of Scotland were in favour of limiting the hours for the sale of liquor on week days and for the complete closing of the public houses on the Sunday. They all agreed that this Traffic was working a great evil, and that being so it was astonishing to him and it was a great anomaly—and he could not get beyond this point—that any legislature acting for a Christian country should legalise the public sale of anything that was having such an evil effect upon the people. From his own observation and from what he knew was the general opinion of Scotland the people would never go back to opening the public-houses on a Sunday. The Sabbath day was a day for rest and worship and anything which militated against that ought to be stamped out.


said he was sure that those Irish Members who were in favour of this Bill were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for North East Lanark for what he had just said. He thought if the trouble were taken to canvas the Scottish Members generally, it would be found in spite of some figures quoted by his friend the Member for Dublin county, that the Scottish Members as a whole were in favour of this Bill. He did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill to-day. They had been discussed over and over again. He intervened because he thought the public outside would be greatly misled if this debate came to a conclusion without one representative of the Nationalist Party of Ireland saying something in favour of the Bill. They had heard the hon. Member for South Belfast give the views of the section which he represented in Ireland in favour of the Bill. They had heard from the hon. Member for South Tyrone the views of the section for which he spoke; they had had from distinguished and influential Members of the Nationalist Party a declaration against the Bill, but from not one Member of the Nationalist Party in the House had they heard any expression of opinion in favour of it. Nothing could be more misleading than to suppose that there was no Nationalist feeling upon this question. He believed he was well within the truth when he said that half those who represented Nationalist or Home Rule Constituencies in Ireland were in favour of the principle of this measure. All he could say was that in the last Parliament, when this matter was discussed in 1903, the majority of the members of the Nationalist Party recorded their votes in favour of closing earlier on Saturday night. It would be seen therefore that the opinions of the Nationalist Members were nearly as strong as those of hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies. He had always been in favour of Sunday closing in Ireland and he recalled with a considerable degree of satisfaction—and the hon. Member for South Tyrone would bear him out in this—that in the year 1878, when an Irish Sunday Closing Bill was first passed in this House, his own father, then Member for Wexford, had a good deal to do with the passing of that measure. He therefore naturally took a very great interest in the question. He was bound to say that twenty years ago, when he first entered the House, and for some time afterwards, he felt the greatest doubt as to whether restrictive-legislation of this, or any kind, would have the effect of promoting temperance in Ireland. The condition of affairs in Ireland then was that almost everything there was subject to coercion. A large number of the Members representing Irish constituencies and thousands of the Irish people were lying in prison without trial, and he held the opinion that with this Bill being administered by a policy of coercion, it would not be possible to achieve any great good. While lie voted for Sunday closing in 1892, he found on referring to Hansard that when a measure of this kind was brought in by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in 1895 he took exception to it, and expressed the view that it would not be possible to get Sunday closing in Ireland while the five great cities were exempted; that he was not satisfied with the Bill, because no undertaking was given in it to consider the position of the five large cities. They were told in those days also that an Irish Parliament—one simply representing the Irish people—was the proper tribunal to decide this question. He held those views twenty years ago and ten years ago, but he was not ashamed to say that he had changed his opinion to this extent, that while he would be glad to see every Irish question settled by a purely Irish assembly, and while he thought that that was the proper assembly to settle such questions, he thought that this question was of such urgency that it should be dealt with by this Parliament, or any Parliament that could deal with it. Hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland could claim that they were as much in favour of temperance as anyone in this House. There were no temperance Members in this House who could exceed the views on temperance reform of the Irish Members. There was not a man on the Irish benches among those who were going presently to oppose this Bill who would not say he did not consider it his duty to do everything in his power to promote temperance. The difference was that they did not believe that temperance was to be promoted by measures such as this. Objection was taken to this Bill from two points of view. First of all they were told that it was a Bill to be dealt with by an Irish Parliament. He hoped there would soon be an Irish Parliament, but in the meantime he would say that if they were willing to take from this Parliament legislation on the land question and other matters affecting the benefit of the people they should also take legislation upon this, which was a question of vital importance to their people. The question was, was this method of dealing with it effective? Hon. Gentlemen said it would have a contrary effect. Figures were quoted to show that it had failed in Scotland, but he did not believe there was any question upon which they could not get figures to prove something different. He believed a dispassionate consideration of the figures connected with this matter would prove that Sunday closing had been a success and was an argument in favour of this measure. The point to consider in regard to this Bill was this. Was it not good to remove the temptation to drink? Some said that if public-houses were not open clubs would be established and drinking would go on there. But he submitted that that was not true, that open public-houses constituted a great temptation, and that without a great success being achieved by this measure its passage could do no possible harm and possibly some good. It was said that the Irish people should not be legislated for in this manner. But the whole of the people of Scotland had been legislated for in this way. It was unnecessary for him to say that every Irishman repudiated with indignation and scorn the charge that the Irish were more drunken than any other people. The figures year after year proved that more money was spent in drink in England than in Scotland; that more was spent in Scotland than in Ireland, and that in proportion to the population less was spent in Ireland than in either Scotland or England. One of the hardest things which men who demanded this legislation had to face was the insinuation that when demanding temperance legislation of this kind they were tacitly admitting the accuracy of the charge made against their country. Nothing of the sort. He believed that Irishmen as a whole were infinitely more sober than either the people of England or Scotland, and while he supported this legislation he indignantly repudiated that statement as contrary to the fact. Upon the question generally he would only say that the amount of money spent in Ireland in intoxicating liquor was far too much. It was a monstrous thing from any point of view that double the whole rental value of Ireland should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Belfast had referred to a statement he (Mr. Redmond) made some years ago to the effect that when he was abroad on a political mission endeavouring to get something for the Irish people he was continually confronted with the statement that in Ireland, a country suffering under a great many disabilities, £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 was spent in drink. He said the Irish people could not afford to do that, and that money spent in that way was a danger to the national life of the country. He did not entirely endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone, or of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth. He did not go so far in this matter as they. In his view there was nothing that was in itself wrong, illegitimate, or criminal in the use of alcohol provided it was used and not abused, but he did say that for a country with a population of 4,000,000 of people to find £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 spent annually in drink could not be right. The drink Bill of the country was enormously large. With the enormous expenditure of this country they heard of overwhelming burdens—the Boer war cost £250,000,000—of little children going to school showing hunger in their faces; of the workhouses being crowded by honest men and women whose only crime that they were poor in their old age. When appeals were made to the Government to feed the hungry children and to keep the old and honest poor out of the workhouse they said there was no money. Then they went into the library and found from the statistics that close on £200,000,000 was spent every year on drink. Therefore he said that legislation of this kind or of any kind that would promote the general idea of temperance was good. The need for Ireland was not so great as that for the two countries of Great Britain, but the demand was great and so far as he was concerned he, so far from being ashamed of the fact, said, that in his experience, which covered the whole of the British Empire, the evidence had carried weight with him; that he had been open to conviction, and he was able now frankly to say that he believed something should be done by Parliament and the Government to help the people towards that better condition of temperance which they all desired to see. He knew it was not always a popular thing to take this view, still less was it popular for a Member of the Nationalist Party to change his views as he had changed his on this matter. He met the other day a friend who said to him— Much as you have changed your opinions in this matter, surely you are not going to follow the lead of the hon. Member for South Belfast, who is one of the most bitter Orangemen and one of the most bitter enemies of the Irish Nationalist sentiment in Ireland. His reply to that was that while he had no love for the Orange section, the hon. Member, representing not merely the Orange section, was right in this matter, and that if the hon. Member represented his Satanic majesty himself, so long as he did what was right he would support him. He for one was heartily glad that there was at least one question upon which Irish Members of all parties were agreed. This was one of the greatest questions of the day and one of the best signs he saw in Ireland to-day was that there was throughout the length and breadth of the country a desire upon the part of all, to whatever school of thought they belonged, to do the best they could for the country upon all those questions upon which they could agree, and that they were becoming more eager to regard each other with that toleration, good feeling, and comradeship which ought to obtain in that country. It was particularly hard for him to take the course he was now pursuing, because many of his best and most respected friends in Ireland were gentlemen connected with the licensed trade; of those gentlemen he had nothing whatever to say except what was good. They had taken their full part in the local life of the country and for every good cause their hands and their purses were stretched out. He made an appeal to new Members of Parliament to listen to the voices of the Irish people in this matter. The tendency in Ireland to-day was in favour of sobriety and national temperance, and those who said the country was drunken should go to Dublin on St. Patrick's Day, the day of the patron saint of Ireland, when they would see a vast concourse of 50,000 or 60,000 people, celebrating the day, and all of them sober. No other city in the would could show so splendid a spectacle. He did not know that he would have many more opportunities of speaking upon this subject. He had parted from friends that he had been closely connected with for twenty-three years over this matter. He had received condemnation from quarters which he should never have anticipated it from. Those were personal matters which he only mentioned to show that he was acting in this matter from most absolute and sincere convictions. Every single personal influence he had in the world was against it, many of his personal friends and many of his political supporters were against him and nothing more or less than a simple but absolute sense that it was his duty as a man enabled him to speak out to-day. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to remember that though none of the leading Members of the Nationalist Party were speaking in the direction in which he spoke, he believed the majority of the rank and file were in favour of the Bill. In this matter he spoke for a number of the rank and file of the Irish Party, and in their name appealed to hon. Members opposite to allow this Bill to be read a second time, and to show the public at large that there was a disposition on the part of this House to give to the Irish people those powers which were necessary for the promotion of national temperance, and which were for the national good.


said he did not remember for a very long time having heard a speech in which the true note of personal conviction and earnest sincerity rang so clear and true. It was with the greatest pleasure that English and Scottish Members found the Irish Members joining in the promotion of a reform which affected the interest of their common country apart from divisions of religious and political opinion. He trusted that this habit would grow, and that the Irish Members would be found co-operating more and more in all movements tending to the social and economic progress of the country. The arguments advanced in favour of this measure were practically the same for the three countries, and therefore the experience of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall might well be cited. That experience was in favour of this Hill. The experience in those three districts was that a restriction in the sale of intoxicating liquor did tend to a considerable diminution of intemperance. Saturday and Sunday were the two days of the week on which the temptation to drink was greatest, because the workers were paid upon a Saturday, while on Sunday they had nothing to do. In addition to the experience of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall they, had the experience of those parts of Ireland in which Sunday closing had already produced a great effect. The results in the areas of Ireland outside the excepted five cities had bean admittedly beneficial and thoroughly good. No demand had come from the other parts of Ireland for any relaxation of the existing restrictions, and, therefore, there was a strong presumption in favour of this suggested extension. Personally he believed that there was a real movement in favour of temperance in Ireland, and in his judgment this was one of the most encouraging signs connected with the progress of the country. He denied that the Catholic Church did not sufficiently advocate temperance. The most striking temperance campaign ever attempted was that of Father Mathew. He must also pay a tribute to the work done by the Gaelic League, which had set itself with great earnestness and a large measure of success to encouraging temperance. The argument that a limitation of hours ought to be accompanied by compensation had no sanction m precedent and was far-fetched. It was said that these restrictions would lead to the illicit sale of liquor; but it had not been found impossible to keep the traffic under control in other towns. As to the inconvenience inflicted on a few working men, they might well consent to submit to it for the sake of the immeasurable benefit to their class. For these reasons the case of Ireland was stronger for these restrictions than that of England or Scotland. The Irish nation were given to hospitality; and the invitation to an Irishman to drink in the company of his friends was more tempting than to the Englishman and much more than to the Scotchman. In the second place Ireland was a much poorer country than either England or Scotland, or even than Wales, and this worked in a doubly injurious way. The poorer a man was the more wretched he was, and the more apt he was to seek some consolation in drink, and the less he had to pay for it. Therefore the poverty of Ireland was a reason why they should be more anxious and scrupulous to remove temptation out of the way of the Irishman even than out of the way of the Englishman. Lastly he was bound to revert to a more delicate matter. It had come to his knowledge that the growth of tubercular disease was assuming very serious proportions. It was getting worse in Ireland, whereas it was getting less in Scotland, and he thought the time had come when serious measures might have to be taken to endeavour to arrest it. He was sure the habit of intemperance was one of the causes which made for the increase of

tubercular disease, and both tubercular disease and the abuse of intoxicating liquor produced a further result even more deplorable. The increase of lunacy in Ireland was one of the most alarming symptoms. No one doubted, he supposed, that excessive use of alcohol was one of the most active and predisposing causes. On these grounds alone, he had no hesitation in supporting this Bill.


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided; Ayes, 222; Noes. 47. (Division List No. 92.)

Agnew, George William Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hart-Davies, T.
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Corbett,CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Anstruther-Gray, Major Cox, Harold Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Armitage, R. Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.) Hayden, John Patrick
Ashton, Thomas Gair Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Hazleton, Richard
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Cremer, William Randal Hedges, A. Paget
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) Crombie, John William Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Crooks, William Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Barker, John Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Higham, John Sharp
Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset) Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Hobart, Sir Robert
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Delany, William Holden, E. Hopkinson
Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry,N.) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Houston, Robert Paterson
Beale, W. P. Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Beauchamp, E. Dickinson, W.H. (S.Pancras,N. Hudson, Walter
Bellairs, Carlyon Dobson, Thomas W. Hyde, Clarendon
Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S. Geo) Dodd, W. H. Jackson, R. S.
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Dolan, Charles Joseph Jardine, Sir J,
Bignold, Sir Arthur Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jenkins, J.
Billson, Alfred Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Branch, James Elibank, Master of Joyce, Michael
Brigg, John Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kekewich, Sir George
Bright, J. A. Everett, R. Lacey King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Brooke, Stopford Fenwick, Charles Kitson, Sir James
Brotherton, Edward Allen Ferens, T. R. Laidlaw, Robert
Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen Ffrench, Peter Lamont, Norman
Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs) Findlay, Alexander Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S. Layland-Barratt, Francis
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Gibb, James (Harrow) Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. Gill, A. H. Lehmann, R. C.
Byles, William Pollard Ginnell, L. Liddell, Henry
Cairns, Thomas Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn. Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Cameron, Robert Goddard, Daniel Ford Lough, Thomas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Lundon, W.
Channing, Francis Allston Grant, Corrie Lupton, Arnold
Cheetham, John Frederick Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lyell, Charles Henry
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Clough, W. Hall, Frederick Macpherson, J. T.
Coats,Sir T Glen(Renfrew, W.) Hamilton, Marquess, of M'Callum, John M.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil M'Crae, George
Collins, Sir W. J. (S.Pancras,W Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk) M'Kenna, Reginald
Cooper, G. J. Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester
M'Laren, H. B. (Stafford, W.) Rees, J. D. Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Maddison, Frederick Renton, Major Leslie Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Massie, J. Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n Tomkinson, James
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rickett, J. Compton Torrance, A. M.
Montgomery, H. H. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Verney F. W.
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Walters, John Tudor
Morpeth, Viscount Robertson,Sir G ScottfBradf'rd Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)
Morrell, Philip Robson, Sir William Snowdon Ward,W. Dudley (Southamp'n
Murnaghan, George Rogers, F. E. Newman Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Murray, James Russell, T. W. Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Myer, Horatio Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Watt, H. Anderson
Napier, T. B. Scarisbriek, T. T. L. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Nicholls, George Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester Weir, James Galloway
Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster Sears, J. E. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitehead, Rowland
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Wiles, Thomas
Paul, Herbert Snowden, P. Wilkie, Alexander
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Spicer, Albert Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke Stanger, H. Y. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Pollard, Dr. Steadman, W. C. Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central) Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.
Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E. Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Priestley,W.E. B.(Bradford, E.) Stuart, James (Sunderland) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Padford, G. H. Sullivan, Donal Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd
Bainy, A. Rolland Summerbell, T. Yoxall, James Henry
Baphael, Herbert H. Sutherland, J. E.
Bea, Russell (Gloucester) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.
Bedmond, William (Clare) Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. O'Doherty, Philip
Acland-Hood.Rt Hn Sir Alex F. Hogan, Michael O'Dowd, John
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.Sir H. Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Hare, Patrick
Baldwin, Alfred Lockwood, Rt, Hn Lt-Col.A. R. O'Kelly, James(Roscommon.N.
Barnard, E. B. MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal E.) Reddy, M.
BottomIey, Horatio M'Calmont, Colonel James Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bowles, G. Stewart M'Hugh, Patrick A. Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Bridgeman, W. Clive M'Killop, W. Rothschild, Sir Edward Albert
Gavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. Meagher, Michael Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cogan, Denis J. Mooney, J. J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrese
Crean, Eugene Murphy, John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon Nolan, Joseph Young, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid Younger, George
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Brien, William (Cork) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nanetti and Mr Clancy.
Halpin, J. O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)
Harrington, Timothy O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 243; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 93.)

Agnew, George William Bellairs, Carlyon Bryce, J. A. (Inverness, Burghs
Alden, Percy Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Burns, Rt. Hon. John
Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch) Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Armstruther-Gray, Major Bignold, Sir Arthur Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas
Armitage, R. Billson, Alfred Byles, William Pollard
Ashton, Thomas Gair Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Cairns, Thomas
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Caldwell, James
Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) Boland, John Cameron, Robert
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Branch, James Carr-Gomm, H. W.
Barker, John Brigg, John Channing, Francis Allston
Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset) Bright, J. A. Cheetham, John Frederick
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Brooke, Stopford Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Brotherton, Edward Allen Cleland, J. W.
Beale, W. P. Brunner, J. F.L.(Lancs., Leigh) Clough, W.
Beauchamp, E, Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Jardine, Sir J. Raphael, Herbert H.
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Jenkins, J. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea) Redmond, William (Clare)
Cooper, G. J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Rees, J. D.
Corbett,A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Renton, Major Leslie
Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Joyce, Michael Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n
Cox, Harold Kearley, Hudson, E. Rickett, J. Compton
Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S. Kekewich, Sir George Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Kilbride, Denis Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cremer, William Randal King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Crombie, John William Kitson, Sir James Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd
Crooks, William Laidlaw, Robert Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Dalrymple Viscount Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rogers, F. E. Newman
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lamont, Norman Russell, T. W.
Delany, William Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Layland-Barratt, Francis Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Schwann, Chas.E. (Manchester
Dickinson, W.H.(S.Pancras,N.) Lehmann, R. C. Sears, J. E.
Dobson, Thomas W. Lewis, John Herbert Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Dodd, W. H. Liddell, Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dolan, Charles Joseph Lonsdale, John Brownlee Simon, John Allsebrook
Donelan, Captain A. Lough, Thomas Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Lundon, W. Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lupton, Arnold Snowdon, P.
Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan Lyell, Charles Henry Spicer, Albert
Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Stanger, H. Y.
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs Steadman, W. C.
Elibank, Master of MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Macpherson, J. T. Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Eve, Harry Trelawney MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Everett, R. Lacey M'Callum, John M. Sullivan, Donal
Fewnick, Charles M'Calmont, Colonel James Sutherland, J. E.
Ferens, T. R. M'Crae, George Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey M'Kenna, Reginald Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Ffrench, Peter M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Findlay, Alexander Maddison, Frederick Thomasson, Franklin
Gibb, James (Harrow) Masterman, C. F. G. Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Gill, A. H. Money, L. G. Chiozza Tokminson, James
Ginnell, L. Montgomery, H. H. Torrance, A. M.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Verney, F. W.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Walters, John Tudor
Grant, Corrie Morpeth, Viscount Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Greenwood. G. (Peterborough) Morrell, Philip Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Murnaghan, George Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Hall, Frederick Murray, James Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)
Hamilton, Marquess of Myer, Horatio Watt, H. Anderson
Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil Napier, T. B. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk) Nicholls, George Weir, James Galloway
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Norton, Capt. Cecil William White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Hart-Davies, T. O'Donnell, C J. (Walworth) White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Mara, James Whitehead, Rowland
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Wiles, Thomas
Hazleton, Richard Paul, Herbert Wilkie, Alexander
Hedges, A. Paget Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke Wilson, Herny J, (York, W.R.)
Henderson.J. M.(Aberdeen, W.) Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon.,S.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Higham, John Sharp Pirie, Duncan V. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hobart, Sir Robert Pollard, Dr. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Holden, E. Hopkinson Power, Patrick Joseph Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd
Houston, Robert Paterson Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) Yoxall, James Henry
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, Robert John (Norfolk.E.)
Hudson, Walter Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.
Hyde, Clarendon Radford, G. H.
Jackson, R. S. Rainy, A. Rolland
Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.) Banner, John S. Harmood- Bowles, G. Stewart
Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. Barnard, E. B. Bridgeman, W. Clive
Baldwin, Alfred Bottomley, Horatio Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.
Cogan Denis,T. Meagher, Michael Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Crean, Eugene Mooney, J. J. Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Joseph Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid Thornton, Percy M.
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard
Halpin, J. O'Brien, William (Cork) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Harrington, Timothy O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Harrison, Broadley, Col. H. B. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Young, Samuel
Hogan, Michael O'Doherty, Philip Younger George
Hunt, Rowland O'Dowd, John
Lockwood,Rt. Hn.Lt.-CoI.A.R. O'Hare, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.
MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Reddy, M.
M'Killop, W. Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Main Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes. 50. (Division List No. 94).

Agnew, George William Crooks, William Higham, John Sharp
Allen, A. Acland (Christch.) Dalrymple, Viscount Hobart, Sir Robert
Anstruther-Gray, Major Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Holden, E. Hopkinson
Armitage, R. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Houston, Robert Paterson
Ashton, Thomas Gair Delany, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Devlin, Charles Ramsay (G'lw. Hudson, Walter
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.) Dobson, Thomas W. Hyde, Clarendon
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Dodd, W. H. Jackson, R. S.
Barker, John Dolan, Charles Joseph Jardine, Sir J.
Barlow, John Emmott (S'm's't Donelan, Captain A. Jenkins, J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N. Duncan, J. H (York, Otley) Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Beale, W. P. Duncan, Robert (Lanark,G'v'n Jordan, Jeremiah
Beauchamp, E. Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Joyce, Michael
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Kearley, Hudson E.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Elibank, Master of Kekewich, Sir George
Bilson Alfred Esmonde, Sir Thomas Kilbride, Denis
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Evans, Samuel T. King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.) Eve, Harry Trelawney Kitson, Sir James
Boland, John Everell, R. Lacey Laidlaw, Robert
Branch, James Fenwick, Charles Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Brigg, John Ferens, T. R. Lamont, Norman
Bright, J. A. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Lawson, Sir Wilfrid
Brooke, Stopford Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Layland-Barratt, Francis
Brotherton, Edward Allen Ffrench, Peter Leese,SirJoseph F. (Accrington
Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Lehmann, R. C.
Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen Findlay, Alexander Lewis, John Herbert
Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Gardener, Col. Alan (Heref'dS. Liddell, Henry
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gibb, James (Harrow) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gill, A. H. Lough, Thomas
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Ginnell, L. Lundon, W.
Byles, William Pollard Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. Lupton, Arnold
Cairns, Thomas Goddard, Daniel Ford Lyell, Charles Henry
Caldwell, James Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cameron, Robert Grant, Corrie Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'hs
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Greenwood, G(Peterborough) MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Channing, Francis Allston Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Macpherson, J. T.
Cheetham, John Frederick Hall, Frederick MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Hamilton, Harquess of M'Callum, John M.
Cleland, J. W. Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil M'Calmont, Colonel James
Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew,W.) Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) M'Crae, George
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)
Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Hart-Davies, T. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Maddison, Frederick
Cooper, G. J. Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Money, L. G. Chiozza
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Hayden, John Patrick Montgomery, H. H.
Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd Hazleton, Richard Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S. Hedges, A. Paget Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Craig,Captain James (Down E. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morpeth, Viscount
Cremer, William Randal Henderson, J. M. (Aberd'n, W. Morrell, Philip
Crombie, John William Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) Morse, L. L.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Thomasson Franklin
Murnaghan, George Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E
Murray, James Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Tomkinson, James
Myer, Horatio Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'd Torrance, A. M.
Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Robson, Sir William Snowdon Verney, F. W.
Nicholls, George Rogers, F. E. Newman Walters, John Tudor
Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r) Runciman, Walter Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Russell, T. W. Ward,W.Dudley(Southampt'n)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney
O'Mara James Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Watt, H. Anderson
O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wedgwood, Josiah C.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Schwann,Chas. E. (Manchester) Weir, James Galloway
Paul, Herbert Sears, J. E. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Philipps.J.Wynford (Pembroke Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitehead, Rowland
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Simon, John Allsebrook Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)
Pirie, Duncan V. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wiles, Thomas
Pollard, Dr. Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. Wilkie, Alexander
Power, Patrick Joseph Snowden, P. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central Spicer, Albert Wilson, Henry J. (York.W.R.)
Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E. Stanger, H. Y. Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh.N.)
Priestley,W. E. B.(Bradford,E) Steadman, W. C. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Radford, G. H, Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)
Rainy, A. Rolland Straus, B. S. (Mile End) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Raphael, Herbert H. Stuart, James (Sunderland) Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd
Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Sullivan, Donal Yoxall, James Henry
Redmond, William (Clare) Sutherland, J. E.
Rees, J. D. Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.
Renton, Major Leslie Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Rickett, J. Compton Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Abraham,William'(Cork,N.E.) Halpin, J. O'Hare, Patrick
Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlexF. Harrington, Timothy O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.
Ambrose, Robert Hogan, Michael Reddy, M.
Aubrey-Fletcher, Ht.Hn. SirH. Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R. Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Baldwin, Alfred Long, Col. Charles W. (Eves'm Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Banner, John S. Harmwood- MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter
Barnard, E. B. M'Hugh, Patrick A. Sassoon Sir Edward Albert
Bottomley, Horatio M'Killop, W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Bowles, G. Stewart Meagher, Michael Thornton, Percy M.
Boyle, Sir Edward Mooney, J. J. Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Bridgeman, W.Clive Nolan, Joseph Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond. O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Cogan, Denis J. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Young, Samuel
Crean, Eugene O'Brien, William (Cork) Younger, George
Faber, George Denison (York) O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.
Flavin, Michael Joseph O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Doherty, Philip
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) O'Dowd, John

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."—(Mr. Sloan.)


opposed the Motion. He argued that he and other Members had not had the opportunity of expressing the views of their constituents on the Second Reading and were entitled to be heard in Committee on the floor of the House. He protested against the Bill being discussed in a back room upstairs. He thought they were quite justified in opposing this Motion. Not a single Nationalist Irishman on any of the public boards in Ireland had ever stood up in support of this Bill.


Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bill on this Motion. The question is whether or not the measure should be sent to the Committee.


said many hon. Members had been deprived of the opportunity of giving their views on account of the Closure, and, although he was a teetotaller himself, he thought he was justified in opposing this Motion and insisting that this Bill should be discussed on the floor of this House. He was adopting this course because he considered that it was the duty of an Irish representative to express the views of his own constituency and not give expression to fads of his own.


upon a point of order asked if the hon. Member was in order in discussing the principle of the Bill.


The hon. Member's argument is quite in order.


said he was not a member of the Sending Committee to which it was proposed to refer this Bill, and therefore, if this Motion was carried, he would he debarred from voicing the opinions of his constituency. Many hon. Members had spoken in fear and trembling of what would happen if they voted against this Bill. He thought they had a perfect right to demand that this measure should not be sent to a Committee upstairs. All the hon. Members who had spoken had not got the courage of the hon. Member for East Clare, who had confessed that he represented not the views of his constituents upon this question, but his own strong feelings in the matter.


I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. A meeting of my constituents was called and they passed a Resolution condemning my action, and I replied, stating that if they took steps to show me that they represented any large body of my constituents I would resign at once. I may say that I have never heard from them since on this question.


said that personally he should be very sorry that any steps should be taken by the electors of East Clare which would deprive them of the eloquent services and the geniality of the hon. Member. Although he differed from the hon. Member on this question, if he were asked to sign such a memorial he would be the first to say "Leave him alone; he is a good fellow although he may be wrong." He hoped that hon. Members would join with him in protesting against this Bill being taken from the purview of the House. He knew that the feelings of hon. Members like the Member for South Tyrone were so strong upon this subject that he would defy the opinions of a majority of his constituents if necessary, but he thought on a matter of this kind the views of the electors ought to prevail.


said he was sure he should be voicing the opinion of all his colleagues when he congratulated the hon. Member for South Fermanagh upon his recovery, and upon having left a sick bed to attend and vote according to his convictions. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for South East Cork that this measure ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. If it were discussed by such a Committee Members would have an opportunity of seeing that it, was being imposed upon the Irish people against the wishes of a great majority of Irish Nationalist Members. If it were sent to a Committee upstairs the public would not know what was being done. Although the Irish Nationalists represented a minority on this question they represented the feelings of the Irish people. Were they going to allow themselves to be voted down by Englishmen and Scotsmen on a question which vitally affected Ireland? It was their bounden duty to use all the forms of the House to protest against any action which would facilitate the furtherance of the Bill. Who were the members of this Grand Committee?


rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be, now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assene, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.


, continuing his Speoch, said it was not right that individual feelings on such a momentous question as this should be allowed to overrule the opinion of the representatives of Ireland. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]


again rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 234; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 95.)

Adkins, W. Ryland Dodd, W. H. Layland-Barratt, Francis
Agnew, George William Dolan, Charles Joseph Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Lehmann, R. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Lewis, John Herbert
Armitage, R. Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan Liddell, Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Atherley-Jones, L. Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Lough, Thomas
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Elibank, Master of Lundon, W.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.) Esmonde, Sir Thomas Lupton, Arnold
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) Evans, Samuel T. Luttrell, Hugh Fownes
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset Eve, Harry Trelawney Lyell, Charles Henry
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Everett, R. Lacey Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Fenwick, Charles Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs
Beale, W. P. Ferens, T. R. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Beauchamp, E. Ferguson, R. C. Munro Macpherson, J. T.
Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S.
Bellairs, Carlyon Ffrench, Peter M'Crae, George
Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo. Fiennes, Hon. Eustace M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)
Berridge, T. H. D. Findlay, Alexander Maddison, Frederick
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford, S. Montgomery, H. H.
Bignold, Sir Arthur Gibb, James (Harrow) Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)
Billson, Alfred Gill, A. H. Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Black, Alexander Win. (Banff) Ginnell, L. Morpeth, Viscount
Boland, John Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John Morrell, Philip
Branch, James Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Morse, L. L.
Bright, J. A. Grant, Corrie Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Brooke, Stopford Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Murnaghan, George
Brotherton, Edward Allen Griffith, Ellis J. Murray, James
Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Myer, Horatio
Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)
Bryce,J.A. (Inverness Burghs) Hamilton, Marquess of Nicholls, George
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Hart-Davies, T. Nussey, Thomas Willans
Byles, William Pollard Hayden, John Patrick O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)
Cairns, Thomas Hazleton, Richard O'Grady, J.
Caldwell, James Hedges, A. Paget OMara, James
Cameron, Robert Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Channing, Francis Allston Higham, John Sharp Paul, Herbert
Cheetham, John Frederick Hobart, Sir Robert Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Holden, E. Hopkinson Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke
Cleland, J. W. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Coats, Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.) Hudson, Walter Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Hyde, Clarendon Pirie, Duncan V.
Collins Sir Wm. J.(S.PancrasW Jackson, R. S. Pollard, Dr.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Jardine, Sir J. Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)
Cooper, G. J. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Price,Robert John(Norfolk.E.)
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Jones,William (Carnarvonsnire Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford,E.
Corbett,C.H(Sussex,EGrinst'd Jordan, Jeremiah Rainy, A. Rolland
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S. Joyce, Michael Raphael, Herbert H.
Craig,Captain James (Down,E. Kearley, Hudson E. Rea, Russell (Gloucester)
Cremer, William Randal Kekewich, Sir George Redmond, William (Clare)
Crombie, John William Kilbride, Denis Rees, J. D.
Crooks, William King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Renton, Major Leslie
Dalziel, James Henry Kitson, Sir James Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mp'n
Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Laildaw, Robert Rickett, J. Compton
Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Roberts, Chares H. (Lincoln)
Delany, William Lambert, George Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway Lamont, Norman Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh.S.) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Robertson.Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd
Dobson, Thomas W. Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Rogers, F. E. Newman Steadman, W Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Runciman, Walter Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) Weir, James Galloway
Russell, T. W. Straus, B. S. (Mile End) White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Stuart, James (Sunderland) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland Sullivan, Donal Whitehead, Rowland
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wiles, Thomas
Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury) Wilkie, Alexander
Schwann, Clias.E. (Manchester) Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Sears, J. E. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh.N.)
Shipman, Dr. John G. Torrance, A. M. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Simon, John Allsebrook Verney, F.W. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Walters, John Tudor Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.) Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.) Yoxall, James Henry
Snowden, P. Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton
Spicer, Albert Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.
Stanger, H. Y Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.) Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds O'Doherty, Philip
Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F Hogan, Michael O'Dowd, John
Ambrose, Robert Houston, Robert Paterson O'Hare, Patrick
Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirH. Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N
Barnard, E. B. Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bottomley, Horatio Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Reddy, M.
Boyle, Sir Edward MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Bridgeman, W. Clive M'Calmont, Colonel James Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Bull, Sir William James M'Hugh, Patrick A. Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Cavendish,Rt. Hon.Victor C.W. M'Killop, W. Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Cogan, Denis J. M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Thornton, Percy M.
Crean, Eugene Meagher, Mchael Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard
Dalrymple, Viscount Mooney, J. J. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Faber, George Denison (York) Murphy, John White, Patrick (Meath,North)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Joseph Young, Samuel
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East) O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid Younger, George
Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Halpin J. O'Brien, William (Cork) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.
Harrington Timothy O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.
Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."

The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 96.)

Adkins, W. Ryland Brooke, Stopford Craig,Captain James (Down,E
Agnew, George William Brotherton, Edward Allen Cremer, William Randal
Anstruther-Gray, Major Brunncr, J.F.L.(Lancs. Leigh) Crombie, John William
Armitage, R. Bryce, Rt HnJames (Aberdeen Crooks, William
Atherley-Jones, L. Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs) Dalziel, James Henry
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Davies, Timothy (Fulham
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Bull, Sir William James Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Baring, Godfrey, (Isle of Wight Burns, Rt. Hon. John Delany, William
Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Byles, William Pollard Dobson, Thomas, W.
Barrie,H. T. (Londonderry, N.) Cairns, Thomas Dodd, W. H.
Beale, W. P. Caldwell, James Dolan, Charles Joseph
Beauchamp, E. Cameron, Robert Donelan, Captain, A.
Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne Carr-Gomm, H. W. Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness
Bellairs, Carlyon Channing, Francis Allston Duncan, J, H. (York, Otley)
Benn,W. (T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo. Cheetham, John Frederick Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan
Berridge, T. H. D. Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham) Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Elibank, Master of
Billson, Alfred Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas
Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff) Condon, Thomas Joseph Evans, Samuel, T.
Boland, John Cooper, G. J. Eve, Harry Trelawney
Branch, James Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Everett, R. Lacey
Bright, J. A. Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Fenwick, Charles
Ferguson, R. C. Munro Luttrell, Hugh Fownes Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Lyell, Charles Henry Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd
Ffrench, Peter Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Macdonald,JM (Falkirk B'ghs Rogers, F. E. Newman
Findlay, Alexander Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Runciman, Walter
Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S. MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Russell, T. W.
Gibb, James, (Harrow) Macpherson, J. T. Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)
Gill, A. H. MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S. Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Ginnell, L. M'Calmont, Colonel James Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) M'Crae, George Scarisbrick, T. T. L.
Grant, Corrie M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester
Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Sears, J. E.
Griffith, Ellis J. Montgomery, H. H. Shaw, Rt. Hon.T. (Hawick, B.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Haldane,.Rt. Hon.Richard B. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Simon, John Allsebrook
Hamilton, Marquess of Morpeth, Viscount Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) Morrell, Philip Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Hart-Davies, T. Morse, L. L. Snowden, P.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Spicer, Albert
Hayden, John Patrick Murnaghan, George Stanger, H. Y.
Hazleton, Richard Murphy, John Steadman, W. C.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Murray, James Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.) Myer, Horatio Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Higham, John Sharp Newnes, Sir George (Swansea) Stuart, James (Sunderland)
Hobart, Sir Robert Nicholls, George Sullivan, Donal
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Nicholson Charles N.(Doncast'r Taylor.Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Hudson, Walter Norton, Capt. Cecil William Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Hyde, Clarendon Nussey Thomas Willans Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Jackson, R. S. O'Donnell C. J. (Walworth) Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen.E.)
Jardine, Sir J. O'Grady J. Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.
Jones, Lief (Appleby) O'Mara, James Torrance, A. M.
Jones,William (Carnarvonshire O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Verney, F. W.
Jordan, Jeremiah O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Walters, John Tudor
Joyce, Michael Paul, Herbert Ward,W. Dudley (Southampton
Kearley, Hudson, E. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Wason Eugene (Clackmannan)
Kekewich, Sir George Philips.J.Wynford (Pembroke Wason John Cathcart(Orkney)
Kilbride, Denis Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Pickersgill, Edward Hare Weir, James Galloway
Kitson, Sir James Pirie, Duncan V. White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)
Laidlaw, Rovert Pollard, Dr. White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Power, Patrick Joseph Whitehead, Rowland
Lambert, George Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,C'ntral) Wilkie, Alexander
Lamont, Norman Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E. Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid Rainy, A. Rolland Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)
Layland-Barratt, Francis Raphael, Herbert H. Wilson, P, W. (St.Pancras, S.)
Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Lehmann, R. C. Redmond, William (Clare) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lewis, John Herbert Rees, J. D. Yoxall, James Henry
Liddell, Henry Renton, Major Leslie
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett
Lough, Thomas Rickett, J. Compton
Lundon, W. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Lupton, Arnold Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Abraham,William (Cork. N.E.) Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.Sir Alex.F Halpin, J. O'Brien, William (Cork)
Ambrose, Robert Harrington, Timothy O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Healy, Timothy Michael O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H. Hogan, Michael O'Doherty, Philip
Barnard, E. B. Houston, Robert Paterson O'Dowd, John
Bottomley, Horatio Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Hare, Patrick
Boyle, Sir Edward Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham) O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.
Bridgeman, W. Clive MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E) Reddy, M.
Cogan, Denis J. M'Hugh, Patrick, A. Redmond, John E.(Waterford)
Crean, Eugene
Dalrymple, Viscount Meagher, Michael Roche, Augustine (Cork)
Faber, George Denison, (York) Mooney, J. J Rothschild Hon LionelWalter
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Joseph Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Gardner, Ernest (Berks, E.) O'Brien.Kendal (TipperaryMid Thornton, Percy M,
Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard White, Patrick (Meath, North) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.
Waldron, Laurence Ambrose Young, Samuel
Watt, H. Anderson Younger, George

Resolution agreed to.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.