(NO. 224.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 23 August 1881)

§ LORD ABERDARE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that some objection might be raised by their Lordships to the late period at which the Bill had been introduced for the consideration of their Lordships. He would, however, point out that however late the period of the Session might be it would be found that three years ago a similar Bill with regard to Ireland was brought in on the 12th of August, read a first time on the 13th, and Parliament rose on the 16th of August. The present Bill was brought into the other House of Parliament on the 7th of January, was read a second time on the 4th of May, and on the division which took place on the occasion of the second reading 163 Members voted for the second reading and 17 against. The measure had been hung up in the other House for the past two months, and that, he thought, was a sufficient argument for his now moving the second reading. The Irish people had wished for a similar measure, and he contended that the same measure of justice should now be extended to the Welsh people. The inhabitants of Wales were anxious for the measure now proposed, which was similar to that in existence in Scotland and in Ireland—namely, that the vending of intoxicating liquors should be prohibited on Sundays. When he said prohibited, he meant with the same exceptions—namely, the bonâ fide traveller, the lodger, and the railway traveller. What he desired to show their Lordships was that there was a genuine desire on the part of the Welsh people—an almost universal desire, he might say—that the proposed change should be effected. With respect to Wales, nothing was more clear than that the opinion was in favour of an alteration of the law. In 1878–9 a canvass on the subject was taken, and the results showed that 75,510 householders in North Wales were in favour of Sunday closing, 720 whilst only 989 were against it. That decision might be considered unanimous. In a similar canvass taken in South Wales there was no lack of indication that South Wales desired similar legislation. In the parish of Aberdare he found that the number of householders whoso opinion was taken resulted in 4,659 being in favour of the closing movement, and only 210 against it. The population there was mainly composed of colliers, and it was therefore obvious that the feeling of the labouring classes on this question as to drink was decidedly in favour of Sunday closing. Such being the case, there existed, he thought, a sufficient justification for the passing of the measure by their Lordships. The only question, however, which their Lordships had to consider was whether the Principality of Wales was sufficiently distinct from England as to entitle it to lay claim to having separate and distinct legislation. Since the introduction of similar Bills relating to Scotland and Ireland, the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners with regard to Scotland and Ireland showed that they had brought about a reduction in the consumption of spirits which amounted to about £5,000,000; so that there had been a diminution of 15 per cent in drinking in Scotland and Ireland. Wales, therefore, he thought, might be considered to have a right to separate and distinct legislation. He was not urging forward the measure on the ground of mere drunkenness on Sundays as compared with other days. There was, however, the amplest evidence that on Saturdays there was a far greater amount of drunkenness than on other days in the week. The next most drunken day in the week was Monday, and there could be no possible doubt that continual drinking did go on from Saturday through Sunday, and so on until and throughout Monday. Now, a measure which broke through this habit was of itself a measure of great importance. Quite apart from the religious aspect of the question, it was of great importance that the day upon which the working man received his wages should be separated from the Monday by the intervening Sabbath, and thereby interrupt a course of continued intoxication. Such being the case, he would ask their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.