Lords Sitting of 30 July 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading Greenwich Hospital* (165).
Second Reading—Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment*(156).
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund(No. 4)*.
Third Reading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) (142), negatived; Companies Acts Amendment* (148); Prison Service (Ireland)* (145), and passed.

EGYPT—THE CHOLERA.

  QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked, What the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were with regard to the importation of rags from Egypt and other places infected with cholera; whether the sanitary authorities of British ports had the power of imposing quarantine regulations; and, if so, to what extent?
  LORD CARRINGTON, in reply, said, he was happy to be able to inform the noble Earl that the rag trade of Egypt was exceedingly small; in fact, 5,000 tons a-year was quite the outside number of tons; and the Local Government Board had prepared a General Order with reference to the importation, and the Order would be issued immediately, and he would at once lay it on the Table. It was true there was mention made in the papers that an American vessel had recently sailed from Egypt with a cargo of rags. Information was received last week that that ship was coming to Liverpool, and an Order was prepared by the Local Government Board as to how it should be dealt with; but it was not issued in consequence of the Board receiving a telegram that the cargo was not to be disembarked from it, but was to go straight to New York. He had already explained to the House the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to quarantine and the regulations that had been issued by the Local Government Board on the subject. These regulations, briefly stated, were that when a ship came in which the officer of Customs had any reason to suspect might be at all infected, the ship was to be at once detained, and ordered to moor outside in such position as the captain might be directed. Notice would then at once be given to the sanitary authority, which would order the ship to be inspected by the medical officer of health. Anyone suspected to be suffering from cholera was to be removed to hospital or other appointed place, and those not removed were to be detained on board ship for at least two days. The medical officer, too, was to take all steps for preventing the spread of infection, and the master of the ship
  894
  was to destroy all the clothes and bedding of the persons attacked, and disinfect the ship. It had been generally believed that the first case of cholera in 1865 was brought to Southampton in a ship from Alexandria; but careful investigation at the time failed to prove that was the case.

  ARMY—THE HEALTH OF THE TROOPS IN EGYPT.—QUESTION.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked, If the Government had any Returns as to the extent of the prevalence of cholera amongst British troops in Egypt?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the Medical Returns for the Force in Egypt, for the week ending July 13, were as follows:—Admissions to hospital in the week, 170; number of cases remaining in hospital on July 13, 546, or 8.21 per cent of the strength of the whole Force. The principal diseases were:—Enteric fever, four cases admitted, and 34 remaining; dysentery and diarrhœa, 22 admissions, and 51 cases remaining; venereal diseases, 23 admissions, and 148 cases remaining.
  EARL DE LA WARRasked whether it would be possible to send home by telegraph the names of men who had succumbed to disease, as it would be a great relief to their wives and families?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the names had already been sent home by telegraph.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked when the next Return should be made?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYreplied, that he could not say exactly the day; but he should say they would certainly come in the course of next week.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS COMMISSION—THE REPORT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in rising to inquire of Her Majesty's Government, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Church Courts will be presented; and to call attention to the contempt of legal obligations that now exists among many of the clergy of the Established Church, said: My Lords, some months back the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack stated that the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts would soon present their Report. Two years and three months have elapsed

  895
  since its appointment. As it had an impossible task to fulfil—namely, to find Courts of Law which would satisfy those who repudiated as unjust all adverse decisions—the time that has been occupied may not be considered too long, were it not that the Press states that the Commissioners have sat only one working day in 10 since their appointment. Delay, also, was an evident object of the recalcitrant Party; and the Prime Minister, with that strong sense of justice and attachment to the law-abiding portion of the community which always distinguishes him, selected three-fourths of the Commissioners from the Party who set the law at defiance. In passing, I may also call attention to the fact that far the larger number of the promotions in the Church made by the Prime Minister have also been conferred on members of the same Party in the Church. I doubt not many of them are able and excellent men; but neither is there any doubt they are, at best, lukewarm supporters of the Church of England as by law established. There is no doubt either that few of the occupants of the right rev. Bench have used the powers they possess to suppress lawlessness in the Church—nay, more, in many instances they have promoted those who openly break the law; so that, taking into consideration these circumstances, your Lordships will hardly be astonished at the large number of the clergy, as I shall show you, who set the law at defiance. I will now ask the attention of the House to the results of this action and inaction, assisted, as it has been, by the stay of proceeding against contumacious clergymen during the sitting of the Royal Commission. I find, from a little book published under the auspices of the English Church Union, called The Tourist's Church Guide, that the following practices, which have been decided to be illegal by the highest Court in the Realm, are in use:—Eucharistic vestments in 359 churches; incense in 16; lights at celebration of the Holy Communion, 663; eastward position, 1,876; in all, 2,901 churches. That is to say, from 6,000 to 8,000 clergy refuse to obey the law under which alone they hold their preferments and position in the Church of England. This evidences a most unfortunate state of lawlessness and disorder; but, large and influential as is this body of the clergy, and rich
  896
  and powerful as are their supporters, they number only about a quarter of the clergy, and the latter a much smaller proportion of the laity. I would here ask attention to the fact that though there are 8,000 contumacious clergymen, that persecuting Society, the Church Association, have only proceeded in 21 cases. It will be said the Bishops would permit no more. It is so; and, with every respect for the right rev. Bench, it seems to me that had they acted with vigour in enforcing the laws of the Church, those laws by which alone the Church of England holds its property and position as the National Church, this state of things could not have come to pass. Is it not to preserve and, when necessary, enforce order in the Church that Bishops are given such powers? Consider that more than half of these clergy are curates, specially licensed by the Bishops, and removable at pleasure. Should not this power have been exercised to enforce the law against contumacious curates? Do the Bishops do their duty when they neglect to use their authority in repressing lawlessness? One excuse is made for the inaction of the right rev. Bench. It is said—what is the importance of vestments, incense, candles, eastward position? These are only matters of fancy. Those who have read the Judgments given, when these were decided to be illegal, will know that they are emblematic of doctrines not held by the Church of England. They are too lengthy to refer to; but I must read an extract from a High Church publication, edited by Dr. Lee. To this work Dr. Pusey wrote an introductory Essay. He stated in a note he was not responsible for the contents of other Essays. I cannot, therefore, say he was responsible for them; but his name leads many to read them. The publication is called Essays on the Reunion of Christendom. Here is an extract—
  "The marvel is that Roman Catholics do not see the wisdom of aiding us to their uttermost. Admitting that we are but a lay body, with no pretensions to the name of a Church, we yet, in our belief—however mistaken—that we are one, are doing for England what they cannot do. We are teaching men to believe that God is to be worshipped under the form of Bread, and they are learning the lesson from us which they have refused to learn from the Roman teachers that have been among us for the last 300 years. We are teaching men to endure willingly the pain of Confession which is an in-

  897
  tense trial to the reserved Anglo-Saxon, and to believe that a man's 'I absolve thee' is the voice of God. … On any hypothesis we are doing their work."—(p. 187.)
  Another plea is — these are educated gentlemen, earnest, good clergymen. I am ready to admit that this is true; but no more nor less so than are the remaining three-fourths of the clergy of England. But I hold that being a devout, good clergyman does not necessarily constitute a good clergyman of the Church of England. I have no doubt there are excellent clergymen, not only in Christian Churches, but in every Church throughout the Universe. But what has a Bishop of the Church of England to do with that? Aye, it is said that there is room enough in the Church of England for large divergence of views. No doubt; but so long as the Church exists under its present contract, that divergence cannot go further than is permitted by that contract as interpreted by the Courts of Law. Again, it is said — "Why interfere with the Service where the clergyman and the congregation are agreed?" Well; but if that is accepted, this is certainly not a National Church, nor the Church of England! Yet, unfortunately, this state of things exists to a lamentable degree; for if a member of the Established Church goes to a strange place, and asks where the parish church is, the answer is—"Oh, that is very High; but St. John's is Low; All Saint's is Broad." While a Roman Catholic, a Wesleyan, a Presbyterian, is at once directed to his church. But, again, suppose in one of these congregations there is a difference of opinion. They must submit it for settlement to a Court of Law. Again, admit that the Church of England is to become a Congregational Church. These congregations, having different beliefs and different forms of worship, on what ground can the property of the Church be confined to them alone; must it not be divided, at least, among all congregations of Christians, if not among all religious communities? And what will become of the Hierarchy of the Church of England? I remember the Bishop of Rochester saying that there were several churches in his diocese into which he never entered, because they set his authority at defiance. Again, I should much like to hear whether it is not true that there are clergymen in the Church of England
  898
  who claim the power of ordaining other clergymen. I heard of one in the Province of York, who ordained some clergymen; and when the Archbishop of York inquired about it, the clergyman told him to mind his own business, and to get himself ordained by the Bishop of Rome. It is reported that some of these clergymen have been consecrated Bishops, though there is a mystery as to who consecrated them. One word on the desire for Christian unity. Every Christian must desire it; and I hope, in a spiritual sense, it exists—not confined to any particular division of the Christian Church—among all bodies of Christians. It cannot be measured by Church government, by ceremonies, by definitions that are but deductions of the human mind. Far be it from me to define Christian unity; but in the beautiful Liturgy of the Church of England, I find a simple and true definition. It is this—
  "We beseech Thee to inspire continually the Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord; and grant that all that do confess Thy Holy Name, may agree in the truth of Thy Holy Word, and live in unity and godly love."
  I dare say many of your Lordships have read the life of a pious and earnest clergyman, lately deceased. He claimed a right, as a clergyman of the Church of England, to communicate in the Greek Church. He went to Russia; he was received by the Heads of their Church, stated his case, explained the 39 Articles according to his interpretation, but acknowledged that this view was not held by the Bishops of the English Church. The Greek Patriarch said he could neither accept him as ordained, nor look on the Church of England but as heretic; but would be glad, on his renouncing the errors of that Church, to receive him into theirs. I fear there is no doubt that this case applies to many of our mistaken clergymen. It shows only that many men have many minds, and that Christian unity will never in this world exist in an outward and visible form of worship. In speaking of lawlessness in the Church, it is impossible to omit the case of Mr. Mackonochie. For more than 15 years his case has been before the Courts. He represents the concentration of contempt and defiance of the law of the land. Condemned many times, he escapes final deprivation only because backed by unlimited funds. Clever lawyers find new

  899
  technicalities that still enable him, a clergyman of the Church of England, to teach doctrines hostile to that Church. Mr. Mackonochie's Diocesan, though that gentleman has for years paid no attention to his admonitions any more than to legal decisions, yet writes thus—
  "I humbly submit that however exalted a man Mr. Mackonochie may be, yet if he has serious differences with the discipline and doctrines of the Church of England, he is not fit to be a pastor of that Church."
  This alone concerns his Diocesan, and the very statement shows that the right rev. Prelate felt that he was not doing his duty in instituting him into his new benefice. I think no one can have read the correspondence that took place on this matter, and a similar case that occurred in the diocese of Manchester, without being distressed at the want of courage shown in the one case, and the conscientious manliness that guided the other. Neither can I pass over the false issue that has been raised as to the conduct of the late lamented Archbishop in this case. No one who had the honour of the smallest acquaintance with the most rev. Prelate could but admire his unaffected kindness and courtesy. No one who heard him in this House but must remember with regret and admiration that they will never listen to that easy, fluent, and dignified utterance which at once commanded the attention of the House. In Mr. Mackonochie's case, though weakened by suffering, he acted in the same spirit that always actuated him. He had no wish to punish the man; but he desired that a contumacious clergyman should not longer cause a grievous scandal. He had nothing to do with the unfortunate juggle in the change of livings which has taken place. I will only say that it is an unfortunate and discreditable circumstance. I trust, however, the rev. gentleman has only got a respite, and ere long he will have an opportunity of devoting his energies to some Body with whose opinions he is in accord. I must now ask your Lordships' attention to a debate, as reported in The Guardian of July 4th, which took place in the Upper House of Convocation touching sisterhoods. The length of the discussion showed how deeply the right rev. Bench appreciated the vast importance of the matter; and that while they all agreed in praising the devotion and self-sacrifice of these ladies, they also agreed—
  900
  "That their work should be supervised; that they should be under the control of the Bishops; that they should be brought within the lines of the Church, and thus sustained in the true paths of wisdom and piety."
  To show the consensus of opinion, I must trouble the House with short extracts from speeches delivered. The Bishop of Lincoln stated—
  "These ladies came to some self-appointed clergyman, who received them with a most solemn consecration, without any regard to whether it was lawful or not. That was the reason he objected to the present sisterhoods, and he considered that the practice led to most disastrous consequences."
  He said further—
  "That some of these most charming ladies exposed themselves to great temptation.… He was surprised that remonstrances had not been made long ago."
  Does it not follow, that the clergy who administer these "consecrations" are also in great temptation? The Bishop of Truro, among other things, said—
  "The position of these sisterhoods I consider a most critical one at present."
  He (the Bishop of Truro) desired a Committee to inquire into the position of these sisterhoods, especially how, without undue interference with their spiritual system, they can be brought practically within the system of the Church of England. He continues—
  "I was forced to face the facts of the inner life of a large number of sisters, and the results of that personal help I have had to give them at all times of their life forced upon me the conviction that the dangers to any Church of any large organizations of devoted women, not properly put under Episcopal supervision, are most serious."
  And he concludes—
  "I am anxious to say no more; but this fact has been forced upon me."
  I will follow the example of the right rev. Prelate, save to say that these utterances are very ominous. What is meant by "the spiritual system;" "the personal help;" "the dangers to the Church;" "the want of proper supervision leading to most serious results;" "the fear of saying too much?" These utterances, from an intimate friend, a supporter of these Societies, are, to say the least, ominous and perplexing. The Bishop of St. David's and the Bishop of Lichfield stated—
  "That these sisterhoods had no greater differences and were no more insubordinate than the clergy.''

  901
  This, I think, your Lordships will have no difficulty in believing. The Bishop of Chichester stated—
  "That the sisterhoods were doing a great and good work in hospitals and schools; but they refused to let him know their rules or enter their house."
  It did not seem to occur to the right rev. Prelate that the first work of these ladies might be to undermine the doctrines of his Church; and the second, charity. The Bishop of Lichfield said—
  "That he had been asked to become a Visitor of a sisterhood; but on examining the rules and regulations, he found they were of a character he could not approve."
  These general expressions of views of the Episcopate must refer to years of experience and a large number of sisterhoods? They can leave no doubt on any fair mind that they are doing a large work of charity; but there is every room to doubt whether their work is conducted in an orderly manner, or whether they are in any wise friends of religion, as viewed in connection with the Reformed Church of England. Now, I must call your Lordships' attention to a most important speech from a most important Dignitary, containing most interesting and important matter. I refer to the speech of the most rev. Prelate (The Archbishop of Canterbury), who fully concurs in the desirability of bringing these sisterhoods into subordination to the right rev. Bench. I will express no opinion on that head. But I fear that he cannot expect great subordination to his views, when he has shown so little respect for the authority of another Bishop; for, subject to correction, I have it that, after receiving information from a brother Bishop that a clergyman in his diocese was acting contumaciously, he, nevertherless, preached in that clergyman's church. I cannot understand the motive of his doing so; but, be it what it may, it could not but tend to encourage insubordination. It seems to me that he was setting an unfortunate example; all the more unfortunate from the exalted position to which he has at present attained. But, my Lords, I will leave the House and the public to form their own opinion on this matter, and will trouble you with a portion of the speech of the most rev. Prelate touching sisterhood. It is thus reported—
  "The President said that he had received long reports of the danger arising from small
  902
  sisterhoods, and with respect to such bodies there came before him a few days ago a case in which a sister had been admitted to the three Vows in perpetuity at fifteen years of age. He was asked to dispense her from these Vows. She was at present in America, and he found that she had applied again and again to the person who had administered these Vows to relieve her from them; but he had refused. He had tried to find whether that person had obtained any power to give the Vows in question; but he seemed to have none except what resided in his own bosom. It was clear that if, under those circumstances, a person could administer such Vows, he might confirm or ordain. But what could be done? He could not dispense her from the Vow, because that would be recognizing the fact that these Vows were administered; and, in point of fact, they did not exist. At the same time, her conscience was much troubled. She had taken the Vows originally because of the defective organization of the Church so to speak."
  The three Vows, your Lordships are aware, are Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience. These were administered to a child of 15. But a short time back we were making laws to protect young girls. There was no dissent as to their necessity. If no law exists to protect young girls from taking Vows of Celibacy, Poverty, and Obedience, does not this case call for their enactment? A poor girl beguiled by a wily priest to sacrifice herself and her property before she is old enough to have any idea what her liberty and property are worth! I think the priest who committed this act was as guilty as any seducer. Is it not as wicked to corrupt the mind as the body? Is it not vile robbery, under pretence of religion, to take her property? The most rev. Prelate is cognizant of the individuality of this priest? Is he a curate in his diocese? Has he withdrawn his licence? Will he not state his name, and so enable all parents and young girls to beware of him? Will he not so prevent his employment as a clergyman in the Church? Will he not expose him to the contumely he merits? This case has come to light. We thank the Archbishop for putting us on our guard. But how many cases similar, aye, perchance, some more disastrous, are hinted at in the speeches of the right rev. Prelates which I have read? These are terrible questions to every father of a family, let him be poor or rich; for who can deny that some of the clergy of our Church are walking about like lions seeking whom they may devour? I am not surprised at the numerous secessions from the ranks of the Ritualists to the Church of Rome. I am no friend of

  903
  their system; but, accepting their sisterhoods, they are at least surrounded by many safeguards which, if not successful to meet all these evils, at least check many of them. I must say a few words, lest it should be thought that I am so narrow-minded or so ungenerous as not to admire the heroic devotion to good, the abnegation of self, that distinguishes these ladies, whatever communion they belong to, the misery and sorrow they alleviate. While they are governed by their own free will, they bless and are blessed! While it guides them there is no necessity for Vows of any kind. But, if for any reason they desire to return to their families, I think it a great and crying wrong that they should be restrained from so doing, whether it be from loss of property or from the restraint of any Vow they have taken. Here we have, by some fortunate accident, this case brought before the public; but it leads inevitably to the question—How many unfortunate young girls or older women may now be immured, and their happiness for life destroyed? I believe this is the only country in Europe where Conventual Institutions are not visited by Inspectors appointed by Government. I have no wish or intention, by word or thought, to cast a slur on the clergy of my own Church or any other Church; but I believe they are but men with like passions to ourselves, and, therefore, to be protected against too great temptation and refused too great power. My Lords, I fear I have too successfully shown you the disturbed and lawless state of the Church of England. It is true, my Lords, that many of the clergy, supported by many of the laity belonging to that Party who set law at defiance, deliberately remain in the Church with the view of instructing its weaker members in doctrines hostile to the Church of the Reformation, although the clergy hold their emoluments and positions under contracts and promises to defend it. Many openly avow this intention; but they are all honourable men—English gentlemen. How changed their view of right and duty! They have created a Party in the Church, who, though they value that Institution most highly as a centre of simple and true Christianity, yet they would prefer Disestablishment to the continuance of these false and lawless teachings in the Church. This Party have accepted many changes—among
  904
  others, a musical and most ornate worship; but they will not accept teaching and practices altogether hostile to those of the Church of the Reformation. I will conclude with the words of the Bishop of Manchester—no Low Churchman, no narrow-minded man. He says—
  "If there is to be a truce at all, the only ground upon which it can be reasonably offered or accepted is, that both parties should keep within the limit of defined law as it stands, existing provocations being withdrawn and no new ones introduced. Is it an unnatural or improper thing to ask—'Till the law is altered keep within the limits of the law?'"
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not propose to go into the general topics raised by the noble Lord, because he spoke in the presence of those who were much better qualified than himself to deal with them. He had, however, to inform the noble Lord that the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission had intimated to the Home Secretary that the Report of that Commission, with Appendices, would probably be sent to the Office of the Secretary of State, for presentation to Her Majesty, in the course of the present week.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there were a good many points in the noble Lord's allegations which the House would not expect him to touch upon. It appeared to him to be a strange impeachment of the Government to say that the Members of the Commission were selected unfairly; but when the Report came into their Lordships' hands he did not think any want of diligence, either as to the number of sittings, or the pains taken in the investigation, or any mark of partiality, would be found in it. With regard to the churches in which the noble Lord stated that illegal practices prevailed, the number must evidently have been arrived at by counting the churches twice over, in some cases even more than twice. The noble Lord had quoted authority to support his views, and had rebutted imaginary pleas put forward by the Bishops. Neither he nor his right rev. Brethren had heard of the authority quoted, nor had they ever advanced the pleas he mentioned. It was strange, indeed, that while Bishops were being accused of inaction and carelessness, a special charge made against them was that they showed too much anxiety to bring the sisterhoods into some degree of subordination to the Church, and to

  905
  have some cognizance of what wont on within them. He should have thought that that was a point which might have been placed to the credit of right rev. Prelates. Those sisterhoods were more numerous than the noble Lord imagined —there were in the Southern Province 700 of them of the more important kind, besides smaller ones, of which very little was known. No doubt, the fears of the noble Lord were exaggerated on this subject, yet, at the same time, it was advisable, as matters stood—indeed, it was imperative—that the Bishops should do their best to obtain some means of ascertaining the mode in which these houses were conducted. There was no reason to suppose that the sisterhoods would have any reluctance in making known their regulations; if they were at all inclined to complain, it would be because they were now, for the first time, noticed when they had become prosperous. Those institutions were of many kinds, and they by no means all belonged to one school. The only one he was acquainted with personally was the Mild-may Park Sisterhood, containing over 100 sisters, and the views entertained by them would be called ultra-Protestant. The lady at the head of that institution told him she was not at all unwilling to see the institution placed under Episcopal supervision. The noble Lord had alluded to the eastward position as being illegal; the highest Court of the land, however, had declared it to be legal; its practice, therefore, could hardly be reckoned among ecclesiastical offences. The noble Lord had alluded to his preaching upon a certain occasion. He might say that he had previously written to, and had received a letter from, the Bishop of the diocese approving his so doing, and he was himself ignorant, until three days before the day in question, of the relation between that particular building and the church authorities in the diocese. Many of these matters were such that the noble Lord could hardly know their history; but he might rest assured that no body of men more anxiously debated upon the course they should adopt in any question affecting the Church's welfare than the Bishops, and none were more constant in their endeavours to redress the evils which existed there. The present state of the Church, compared with what it was 40 years ago, would show that they had not laboured without success.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, that the most rev. Prelate had in no wise answered his complaint of the want of will or want of power in the right rev. Bench to repress the constantly unnecessary evil of lawless practices in the Church. The most rev. Prelate had said that the Bishops discussed these illegalities. What was asked was that they should repress them; and he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) believed that if they did not do so, the Church of England would inevitably be Disestablished, not from the attacks from without, but from disunion within.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the noble Lord might move the adjournment of the Debate, as they did in the other House.
  After a few words from the BISHOP of LONDON,
  [Subject dropped.]

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (The Lord Greville.)
  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.

    (NO. 156.) SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD GREVILLE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that in 1874, when the Act was passed, certain sums of money arising from a charitable fund were transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, who were ordered to grant loans out of it to counties for fishery purposes. These loans would only, however, be granted to eight counties being maritime counties, and he wished the Bill to be read a second time for the benefit of the counties of Roscommon and Tipperary, which were not maritime counties; and if the Bill were passed it would allow these sums of money to be utilized for works of utility in those two counties. Every possible security had been taken against wasteful expenditure of the money, which would be advanced only for a term of 35 years, when it would become repayable.
    Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Greville.)
    LORD VENTRYsaid, he should not oppose the second reading; but he had many objections to the Bill. For instance, it failed to indicate any special

    907
    purposes for which the money was to be spent. It was also, in this and other respects, inconsistent with previous legislation on this subject. If he was not able to amend the Bill in these respects in Committee, he should move the rejection of the Bill at a later stage.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.—(No. 42.)
  (The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.—(No. 42.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." —(The Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe.)
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, said, that those of their Lordships who happened to be present when this Bill was last before them might, perhaps, remember that the noble Lord who was promoting it was anxious that it should be read a third time on the following day. He (the Earl of Wemyss) had on that occasion ventured to ask for a little more time, and for that he was taken to task and censured by the noble Lord who presided over the destinies of India and of Ilbert's Bill. Now, they were all aware that individual liberty had, in a great measure, been practically done away with since the present Government came into power; but he had certainly not been aware that it was to the extent that an independent Member of their Lordships' House was to be debarred from expressing an objection to a Bill because it was endorsed by a Member of the Cabinet. Notwithstanding this disapproval and censure, it was his purpose on the present occasion to invite their Lordships to reject the Bill. The measure had followed a very eccentric course in the two Houses of Parliament. One of the last Saturdays of the last Session in "another place" had been devoted to the especial purpose of certain Estimates; and to the surprise of everyone the Cornwall Sunday Closing Bill suddenly made its appearance, and no one being there in readiness to oppose it, it passed the second reading. During the present Session the Bill had been again introduced in "another place;" but
    908
    as it was blocked—and he would own that he regretted the absence of the power of blocking in their Lordships' House, which, if adopted, would, he supposed, fix half-past 7 instead of half-past 12 as the blocking hour—it seemed to be deemed advisable that it should execute a flank movement. It was, therefore, withdrawn from the Commons, and, doubtless to the astonishment of their Lordships, made its appearance on their Lordships' Notice Paper. This kind of proceeding pretty much resembled a process with which the Cornishmen of the Coast were once not unfamiliar, for it was an attempt to smuggle the measure through Parliament. If the Bill passed their Lordships' House it was pretty sure to have a run through the other House, for it would only come on there at a period of the Session when nobody would be present to oppose it. His noble Friend brought this Bill forward on the ground of the unanimity of the people of Cornwall, and he rested his argument upon a Petition bearing the signatures of 120,000 adults. Now, in all Cornwall there were nothing like 120,000 adult males.
    THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE: The signatures are not exclusively males
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Exactly; females and children had been pressed into requisition in order to bolster up the case. He believed, however, that careful analysis of the Petition showed that among the ostensible signatures were long lists of names written in the same hand, many of them without address or specified occupation. Whole families of 12 or 15 members had signed, many young children being signed for in groups; and, as if the public did not furnish a sufficiently wide field, the inmates of lunatic asylums had been pressed into service. All this showed what the real value of the Petition was, and he hoped their Lordships would accept it for what it was worth. At a meeting which was held not long ago at Plymouth, not for the purpose of discussing this Bill, but for a political purpose, the opportunity was taken by his noble Friend who presided on the occasion of ascertaining the opinion of Cornish men upon this question by a show of hands, when he said that opinions were so much divided that he could not say; and what he would like

    909
    their Lordships to do was to consider the Bill itself. It proposed to shut up every public-house in Cornwall on the statement in the Preamble that the partial closing of public - houses had been attended by many advantages, and that the logical conclusion from that state of things was that it was desirable they should be shut up altogether. Well, in London the public-houses were shut up for a considerable length of time on each Sunday; but he did not think there was any Peer in their Lordships' House who would on that ground bring in a Bill to provide that they should be closed altogether, for such a measure would be resisted by the working-classes and could not be carried. The attempt had, indeed, already been made, and had led to rioting and failed. So the Sunday Closing could not be applied to the Metropolis and large towns where most needed, assuming the principle to be sound. It puzzled him, however, to find why it was this kind of legislation should be applied to Cornwall, of all the English counties in particular, seeing especially that Cornwall was one of the most sober counties in the country. Why, then, should this attempt to deprive the people of the opportunity of obtaining necessary refreshment be initiated there? During the past year there were only eight persons, bonâ fide Cornish men, brought up charged with drunkenness on Sunday, and there was nothing to show that it might not be the same person who had been eight times charged with the offence. Therefore, as regarded the county of Cornwall, it was clear the Bill was unnecessary; and, therefore, he called upon their Lordships to reject it, not only on that ground, but because it was the first attempt to establish local legislation in counties. In Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales Sunday Closing had been established by law. But what had been the result? At the Irish Assizes in March last Lord Justice Fitzgibbon said the cases of intemperance in County Clair had risen from 960 to 1,511. At Nenagh Baron Dowse said drunkenness had increased in the North Riding of Tipperary from 512 to 1,037 cases, a little over 200 per cent. At Cavan Judge Harrison informed the Grand Jury that drunkenness had trebled in their county. At Limerick Judge O'Brien said that intemperance had
    910
    doubled in that county. In all these counties the Irish Sunday Closing Act was in force. There wore, however, as their Lordships knew, five principal towns in Ireland which were exempted from the operation of the Act, and the effect had been that while drunkenness had increased in the other parts of the country to such an extent as to call down the animadversions of the Judges, it had actually decreased in the five towns which were exempted from the Act. In Wales, the Head Constable in Cardiff stated that convictions for drunkenness on Sunday in that town had increased 50 per cent since the Welsh Sunday Closing Act had been in operation, while surreptitious drinking in unlicensed houses had been more than quadrupled. In Scotland, where the Forbes Mackenzie Act was in force, there were 176,000 convictions for Sunday drunkenness, against 119,000 in England. Great as was this contrast, it became immensely more so when it was taken into consideration how vastly large was the population of England compared with that of Scotland. A recent Parliamentary Return showed that in Scotland during the last four years convictions for drunkenness on Sunday had been steadily increasing from 1,866 in 1879 to 2,530 in 1882. This showed that this kind of legislation had failed. There were, however, other considerations which he was anxious to bring before their Lordships. The first of these was that this was the first step in the direction of piecemeal legislation. If successful in Cornwall, it was intended to extend this system to every county from Land's End to John O'Groats. Those who promoted it knew well they had no chance of carrying a General Act applicable to the country at large. They found that in public opinion, on the whole, the present system was too strong a wall for them to attempt to throw down; and, therefore, they were proceeding to demolish it brick by brick. Now, if this kind of legislation was good for any it was good for all. Taking them on that principle, he would ask them why this legislation should be confined to counties? And why it should not be extended to Unions, large towns, and parishes? If this Bill succeeded in passing, there were seven which would be withdrawn in the other House and introduced into their Lordships' House.

    911
    It was a dangerous thing to adopt the principle of Local Option, for if it were adopted with reference to the Church of England, the result would be—and this argument he specially recommend to the right rev. Prelates who appeared to take such an interest in this Bill—that in Cornwall, which was pre-eminently a Nonconformist county, the Church of England would undoubtedly be disestablished in that county; and if the question were put to the vote, nolunnes episcopari would be the answer. If everything was to be left to Local Option, why was not the question of marriage with a deceased wife's sister referred to that sanction in places where there was a strong feeling against such marriages; and if local legislation such as this was to apply to a county, why not to a Union? Why not to a parish? The principle of the Bill was simply this—that because eight Cornish men were drunk in the year, every man in Cornwall was on Sunday to drink nothing but Zoedone and lemon squash. For his own part, he could never understand why, if a few men got drunk, they should proceed to punish the sober man by enacting that he should have nothing to drink. This was a question which mainly affected the poor man, and was not one which affected the rich. He did not hear it urged that their Lordships' cellars were to be locked up on Sunday, and yet it was proposed to prevent a poor man from getting a glass of beer at a public-house. Another point was, why were the publicans specially selected as the only traders who were to have this hard measure dealt to them? The Rev. Dr. F. G. Lee, of All Saints', Lambeth, who was a great friend of the Temperance Cause, recently addressed the following letter to an applicant for his co-operation to put down the opening of public-houses on Sunday:—
    "Sir,—If you and your friends choose to make a proposal that all shops of every sort and kind in town and country be closed by Act of Parliament, I am convinced that, both on religious and social grounds, there is much to be said in favour of such a proposal. But when, for special and persecuting legislation—and passing over the West End Clubs—you select the publicans, who are severely taxed, often misrepresented, bear heavy burdens, and get plenty of abuse, I am bound to tell you frankly that I can take no part in promoting such a scheme. It would be mean, one-sided, illiberal, and unjust to do so. For in this
    912
    parish I can bear personal testimony that, on the whole, the publicans as a body are generous and charitable, and conduct their business creditably; and no more deserve to be made the victims of special grandmotherly legislation than the newsagents, confectioners, tobacconists, or other shopkeepers who so largely carry on Sunday trading."
    That, he thought, showed that the Rev. Dr. F. G. Lee was a regular brick. It was, however, remarkable that in this Bill there was nothing whatever said about compensation. They were going to take away from the licensed victualler one-seventh of his profits; and yet they were silent upon the point of how he was to be compensated for that loss. And even if there were anything of the kind in the Bill, the ratepayers ought to be considered, who would have to provide for the compensation. Another point to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention was the question of evasion. It was a social axiom that the more they imposed restrictive measures of this kind upon the people the more they excited in them a spirit of evasion, which, in the long run, would spread from the law which excited it to legislation in general; and thus the people would run the risk of losing the high character of which they at present boasted—that they were the most law-abiding population in existence. There was only one other point to which he wished to direct attention, and that was the time at which this measure was brought forward. There might be some palliation for it, although not in strict principle, if it were brought forward at a time when drunkenness was prevalent throughout the country; but it was brought forward at a time when it was notorious that temperance was making astounding strides in this country, when the Revenue from the Excise had fallen off about £2,000,000, when they had the Salvation Army working in every town, and when so many persons they met in the streets wore the blue ribbon. There were two things he would impress upon their Lordships. The one was the reason given for this kind of legislation—namely, that temptation should be taken away from men. He had always thought that, instead of taking temptation away from men, the best thing was to try to strengthen their characters to enable them to resist temptation. Such legislation as this tended to weaken the na-

    913
    tional character; and it had the further evil of being an undue infringement of rights and liberties. He would remind their Lordships of a speech uttered by, perhaps, the most eloquent Member of the House, he meant the Bishop of Peterborough, who was now sorely stricken—and he was sure there was not one of their Lordships who did not earnestly pray that he might be restored to health —in which he had said, with reference to this question of individual liberty, that he had no love of drunkenness; but that, while he wished to see it disappear from the land, he would rather see England drunk and free than sober and enslaved. He would, therefore, ask their Lordships, who were in an independent position, superior to the influence of the Caucus, and capable of creating a free and independent public opinion, to reject this Bill, which was novel in its character, contrary to sound principles of legislation, and antagonistic alike to the instincts and traditions of a free people.
    Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
    THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEMy Lords, when this Bill was read a second time, my noble Friend stated his intention to move its rejection at a later stage, and named as the ground of his objection that it was piecemeal legislation. He has now attacked it, however, from every conceivable point—the way in which it was brought into the House of Commons, the way in which it has been brought into this House, and the principle of the Bill. He has attacked it all around, and brought to bear all his ability, eloquence, and Parliamentary experience. He says that the Bill is brought here because it could not have succeeded in the House of Commons, and failed in the last Session. I am bound to take exception to that. The Bill was put down day after day, and week after week, in the House of Commons throughout the Session. It was moved several times, but blocked by my noble Friend and Mr. Warton. They could not expect the promoters of the Bill to withdraw it simply because they had put a block in its way, and it had been put off to the close of the Session. The noble Lord
    914
    speaks of this Bill being a surprise, and of its being brought on as a surprise on a Saturday. The real fact is, that on the day before the Question whether the Bill should be taken on the Saturday was put to the House, and a Division was taken, and the minority was only 8 or 10. My Lords, you are not asked to pass this Bill, as my noble Friend says, because there is an adverse majority in the House of Commons, and it is wished by means of the prestige of passing it in your Lordships' House to run it through the House of Commons. Quite the contrary. The House of Commons has shown most clearly that it is in favour of this Bill, and of the principle which it embodies. It was read a second time last Session; and although the noble Earl and Mr. Warton fought very gallantly, they only got, as I said, eight or ten followers. The Welsh Bill, which was practically the same in its terms, was carried in the House of Commons by 163 to 17. To the Petition in support of this Bill my noble Friend referred in a way intended to make it ridiculous. But there was extremely little in what the noble Earl said. The population of Cornwall at the last Census was under 330,000 souls, from infants upwards. The number of adults above 16 years of age would be about three-fifths, or 198,000. Of these 198,000, 120,332 signed this Petition. It was a Petition which included all classes; not only Noncomformists, but Churchmen and persons of all classes, and, of course, females as well as males, otherwise the number could not possibly have been found. It is perfectly true a large number of names were written in the same handwriting; that will be the case with any Petition to which a great number of names are attached. But when all such names were struck off the numbers stood at 119,275. The result showed the statements against the Petition to be what I may call a "cock and bull story." Because a certain number of persons signed the Petition who dated from a lunatic asylum, it was said —"You have got all the lunatics in it." There were 57 or 58 of these names. The lunatic asylum had 700 or 800 inmates, and in order to manage them, 50 or 60 persons had to be employed. Not one lunatic signed the Petition. But when one knows how nearly allied drink is to lunacy, one does not wonder

    915
    these persons who had charge of lunatics felt very strongly on this question. This Petition was an almost unprecedented representation of the feelings of the county. All the Mayors, with one exception, signed it as Mayors, Municipal Councils presented separate Petitions in favour of the Bill, and seven or eight Boards of Guardians, composed of men who might be supposed to know the feelings of their neighbours, did the same. There were 46 public meetings, and all were in favour of the Bill. Not only so; but after last year's Bill fell through, 132 public meetings were held all over the county, and without one exception they all passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. In only three or four was a counter-resolution proposed, and in none was it carried. In all other cases the answer was unanimous. Make any allowance you please for mistakes, or for persons who signed the Petition in ignorance, and still there remain a residuum which certainly shows the feeling of the county. I base my claim also upon the character of the Petition. A movement or agitation among one class you may look upon with jealousy, because what is advantageous to them may be disadvantageous to the rest of the community. But this comes from all classes; and instead of seeking an advantage, they have entered into a sort of self-denying ordinance, and desire to give up something which you may think necessary for their convenience. I am glad my noble Friend did not refer to the counter-Petition which was promoted by a strong and influential body—the Licensed Victuallers' Association. I should have been quite ready to go into that, and analyze it as my noble Friend did the Petition in favour of the Bill. My Lords, this has been called ridiculous and grandmotherly legislation; but it has been adopted, not only in Scotland, and Ireland, and Wales, but in Canada, New Zealand, Tasmania, and two or three other Colonies. Some of them have had it for 20 years, and have kept it, while others, after seeing its results elsewhere, have adopted it and still retain it. The real question is not whether this legislation is grandmotherly but whether it answers. My noble Friend quoted some statements from papers which have been sent out by the Licensed Victuallers' Association. They must be taken
    916
    for what they are worth. In Ireland I may say the Judges in many cases gave other reasons for the increase of drunkenness, and in Scotland the consumption of intoxicants in 10 years following the Forbes Mackenzie Act was far less than in the 10 years preceding, though in England the consumption largely increased. In 1877 the Chief Constable of Edinburgh gave evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons showing that the state of things in that town had greatly ameliorated. With regard to Wales, I have seen a number of letters saying that the Act works very well. But, of course, they were from persons who were greatly in favour of the Bill. I am surprised to hear the noble Lord say the House is free from public opinion.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: No; free to form public opinion.
    THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEI beg your pardon for the blunder. My noble Friend says again that drunkenness is on the decrease because public opinion is going in that direction. It is difficult to say what is due to public opinion and what to legislation. They act pari passu. One other point, and I have done. It is with regard to the comparison between our houses and poor men's houses. My Lords, this is a poor man's question. It is perfectly true that a great difference exists between the rich and the poor in these matters, for the rich have their Clubs and their cellars; but it is the poor man who is asking for the Bill. That is the most remarkable thing about the canvasses which have been made. The humbler the rank of the people the greater was the preponderance in favour of this measure. They do not grudge you advantages which do not create the evils of which they complain. They ask you to look at the subject from their point of view. There are other differences between the rich man and the poor man. My noble Friend can send his sons to any school or College he chooses; if he finds a danger of their contracting bad habits in one place he can remove them to another. The poor man cannot do that with his son who is an apprentice, and in whose way on Sundays, when he has nothing to do and money in his pocket, the public-house stands open and offers a temptation which many cannot resist. The father knows this might be

    917
    altered, but is being kept as it is by those who cannot or will not put themselves in his position, and you cannot wonder if there is some bitterness in that man's heart, which no jealousy of your superior comforts and conveniences would excite or justify. My Lords, the difficulty of passing such a Bill as this for the whole country has been spoken of. The people of Cornwall do not wish to wait until that difficult question is settled. They see no real practical difference between passing such a Bill for the 12 counties which form the Principality of Wales and passing it for the one county forming the Duchy of Cornwall, which is inhabited by a cognate people. There is no geographical difficulty. On three sides we are surrounded by water, and on the fourth our boundary is a river. If the Bill fails it can do little harm; if it succeeds it may remove some of the difficulties which stand in the way of the larger measure to which my noble Friend alluded.
    LORD MOUNT-TEMPLEsaid, that the law prohibiting Sunday trading applied to all trades except that of publicans, although the provisions of that law were found defective in execution. Why should publicans be favoured with a privilege denied to all other trades? It was an invidious monopoly injurious to the sellers of other articles. On Saturday wages were paid; the public-houses, and no other shops, being open on Sundays, many were tempted to spend their wages in beer or gin, when they might have bought with their wages nourishing food or useful clothing. The privilege which publicans had was of no advantage to the country, and he doubted very much whether it was of any advantage to themselves. Those who were influenced by the speech of the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill would believe that the publicans were opposed to the Bill; but when the ratepayers in Cornwall were asked to record their opinions some few years since, three out of four publicans were desirous of closing on Sundays. As regarded the objection that this was a local measure, he would point out that the whole question was primarily of a local character, though indirectly it affected the nation, and for local desires and convictions it was right to have local enactments. As statistical inquiries showed that the Bill was desired
    918
    by 98 out of every 100 of the Cornish people, it ought not to be rejected merely because other parts of England did not demand it.
    LORD TRUROsaid, he thought that the real and simple question was whether this was a piece of wise and judicious legislation? They had heard a good deal about grandmotherly legislation; and though, no doubt, there had been a public necessity for the Factory Acts and similar measures, the present Bill could not certainly be regarded in the same light. The Revenue from the National Excise was £2,000,000 less last year, and the crime statistics of the country showed that the same amount of drunkenness did not exist as was, until a short time ago, the case. He himself had received reliable information which convinced him that the people of this country did not require to be kept in a state of tutelage. Education was making itself felt. He had heard on the previous day of 72 parishes in the Midland Counties which did not furnish a single case of criminal drunkenness at the Quarter Sessions. If there was a disinclination in Cornwall to the consumption of intoxicating liquors, the inference was they meant to continue sober, and did not stand in any need of this legislation.
    LORD BRAMWELLremarked, that their Lordships ought to bear in mind that if this Bill passed it would create a new crime, and that it would prohibit, not only the sale of spirituous liquors, but the sale of everything which was sold by those who sold spirituous liquors. He was rather disposed to think that those who consumed spirituous liquors were, under the Sunday Acts, guilty of an offence quite as much as those who sold them. But it was absolutely certain that such an Act of Parliament as this would be infringed—no man's conscience would forbid him to drink a glass of ale on Sunday if he were disposed to do so; and even if the fears of the beerseller prevented him from selling, there would be a variety of reasons to lead to such a sale. It was not an application of the line—"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? "It was rather—"Dost thou think, because thou art vicious, there shall be no more cakes and ale? "He could confidently declare that he had tried more cases of perjury

    919
    arising out of the sale of beer during unlawful hours than from any other cause. There were policemen on the watch to see if these Sunday Acts were infringed, and then a sort of perjury was committed, with the feeling, he supposed, that there was no very great harm in frustrating a prosecution of the kind. This was a mischief which sprang from the restrictions that already existed, and it would certainly augment. The Preamble of this Bill involved the general proposition that what was good for four hours out of the 24 would be good for the whole 24 hours—a proposition which he believed their Lordships would be reluctant to affirm. The craving for drink, if it existed, might be battled with, he supposed, for the space of four hours; but that would be more difficult with a period of 24 hours. He could not help asking what the object was of this legislation? Assuming it was made out that the majority of the people of Cornwall were in favour of this Bill, for whose sake was it asked? Was it asked for the sake of a minority, who did not want it, to make them good against their inclination? Or was it for the sake of the majority, who could not take sufficient care of themselves? What, again, was there to distinguish Devon from Cornwall? Absolutely nothing. One consequence of this Bill would be that they would see a great many bonâ fide travellers from East Cornwall into Devon. A Bill of this description would simply compel people to provide their drink on the Saturday; and a fitting title for it would be "An Act for the Encouragement of the Sale of Bottled Beer." In all these cases of goodness the goodness was always so excessive—there was no moderation in it. Here was a proposal to shut up public-houses altogether on Sunday. No tea or other refreshment whatever could be sold. But it was said that the proprietors of these houses would sell beer, and not tea or other refreshments. This showed the evil of such legislation as this—it stopped that which was lawful. The consequences of the Bill would be that not only would an increased number of offences be committed, but attempts would be made by the public to evade it and dodge it in every possible way. On all the grounds he had mentioned he was opposed to the Bill.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that, having some connection with Cornwall, he was a little surprised at the anticipations of his noble and learned Friend, that the Bill, if passed, would lead to an increase of perjury. Considering that very strong prohibitions existed under the present Acts, and that during a very considerable part of Sunday drinking was entirely forbidden, it was scarcely a sufficient argument against an extension of the hours, that possibly some persons might violate the prohibition. In Scotland legislation of this kind had been enforced for several years; but he had never heard that it had resulted in an increase of perjury. The real question was a simple one. A great deal had been said about its being undesirable to close public-houses on Sunday, as an interference with the general principle of liberty; and he had a certain amount of sympathy with those who argued that they should not restrict liberty in that respect. But the principle of Sunday Closing had already been distinctly enacted by Parliament; and the question was, when a county came forward and said that they desired the measure, whether it was desirable to extend to a particular part of that county a principle already extended to Wales and a considerable part of Scotland and Ireland. His noble Friend who sat behind him (Lord Aberdare) had the other night pointed out that it was by no means a new principle to allow particular measures in particular communities. In many places there were special police laws and measures dealing with such subjects as those; and in cases where there was so great a difference of opinion he could not conceive a better course than that they should allow communities such as Cornwall to try the experiment of passing a law of this kind, which, at all events, could not be an evil to any other community; and he did not think they should lay down as a substantive rule that Parliament should never pass any particular measures. He thought the noble Earl opposite had shown that there was really in Cornwall a very strong consensus of opinion in favour of the Bill. He would also point out to the noble and learned Lord behind him that the man who went over the border to another county did not drink any more; and he was not aware of any evil caused in that way, except that he had to go a

    921
    certain distance to avoid the restraint which did not exist on the other side of the border. Upon the whole, he hoped the House would agree to the Bill, and he thought it was a fair demand to make on Parliament.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think we have arrived at a point when we have a right to employ some considerable precautions in the special legislation which has undoubtedly been adopted for Wales, for Ireland, and for Scotland. This is the first time it is proposed to apply to England the principle that you are to restrain one man from a legitimate indulgence because another man happens to be rather weak in self-restraint. Well, that is a rather strong principle to assert. I am quite aware that it is gaining ground at the present day, and that that rather repulsive form of virtue which desires to dragoon its neighbour into imitation is very much on the increase. But, at all events, I do not wish to accept or to struggle for the enunciation of general principles upon this matter. I am content to agree with the noble Earl who has just sat down, that it is possible that on such a subject asthis a greater localization may be in store for us, a greater abandonment of centralized and of symmetrical legislation than we have hitherto seen. But, at all events, I should like, before adopting for any special cases what is abstractedly and generally a very odious kind of legislation—I should like to have some kind of indication how far we are to go, and by what standard and measure we are to abide in determining how far we are to go. Now, several of the speakers in this debate—and I think among them the noble Earl who has just sat down—have indicated, not indistinctly, that this process is to them, as it was described by my noble Friend on the Cross Benches, the taking down brick by brick of a wall which you are not strong enough to knock down at once, and that they hope to extend this to the whole of England. I am pretty sure that they will meet with an uncommonly tough resistance if ever they attempt to do it, and I do not wish them joy of the undertaking. But when the noble Earl tells us that Parliament has already conceded this principle, I think —and I hope he will pardon me for saying so—he is importing rather inconsistent language into his argument. We
    922
    are often told that it is very foolish for us on this side of the House to resist the thin end of the wedge; but whenever the thin end of the wedge has been inserted, we are told that Parliament has conceded the principle, and that we cannot resist any further. I really want to know on what principle we are going in this matter? Is it our intention to give these very odious privileges to populations that desire them? If so, what unit of population would you select? Is it counties, unions, or parishes you are going to take, and by what means are you going to ascertain the real unanimity or strong desire on the part of the population—because you may be guilty of inflicting very great injustice upon the minorities whom you force to conform? In this case we are going upon the most doubtful and the most insecure of all possible indications. of popular feeling, and that is upon Petitions which have been got up by zealous canvassers. I remember a case in which a clergyman signed a Petition in favour of all kinds of advanced Ritualistic practices in the belief that "it was something about the Burials Bill;" and that which is the case with an educated man I suspect is very much more the case with numbers of the people who have been canvassed in favour of this Bill. Before I judge what is the value of a signature attached to a Petition I wish to know what is the precise statement made to the man who signed it, and until I know that I cannot ascertain whether his assent is worth anything or not. My Lords, if you mean to go on in this course, you must do it in rather a less haphazard way than this; you must adopt some machinery for ascertaining whether you are really acting in conformity with the wishes of the population. I do not say I desire any such consummation. I detest the progress of this principle of forcing one man to give up legitimate indulgences because another man is unable to keep himself straight; but if you adopt it, at all events you must do so upon some settled and ascertained plan, and not in this random way. Under all these circumstances, I feel I have no alternative but to vote with my noble Friend who has moved the rejection of the Bill.
    THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could not help thinking that the whole tone of his noble Friend who had just sat

    923
    down, and certainly the whole of the observations of the noble Earl who opposed the Bill, went the whole way of asserting the principle of absolute Free Trade in the sale of liquor. That system had been fairly tested at Liverpool, where the experience of the magistrates was such that they were very glad to return to the old system; and he trusted the House would not commit itself to any such sweeping and formidable principle. The noble Earl who opposed the Bill seemed to think it unjust and unreasonable that public-houses should be closed. Given that they were to be at liberty to consider the morals of a community, they had to ask, was this a reasonable request? And he thought the community should be allowed to try the experiment if they desired it. He attached no weight to the argument that the Bill would create new offences, for every restriction did so. He thought the noble Earl in charge of the Bill had shown conclusively that Cornwall was united in its desire for the passing of this Bill; and, therefore, he should most heartily give his vote in favour of it.
    VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he would ask the noble Duke whether he was really serious in saying that those who opposed this exceptional legislation were in favour of Free Trade in drink? He, for one, should repudiate any such imputation, and he was sure the noble Duke would find it very hard to maintain it. His objections to the measure were two; the one was that it was introducing the thin edge of the wedge, and the other that it was an infringement of personal liberty. If this really was intended to be the thin end of the wedge, noble Lords ought to bring in a General Bill at once, instead of this piecemeal legislation. He considered the noble Lord who spoke from behind the Government Bench (Lord Mount-Temple) had endeavoured to prove too much, for if 98 out of every 100 of the Cornish people were in favour of closing the public-houses, why were they not closed? Why did not the publicans who were said to be in favour of the Bill put up their shutters, or why did not the magistrates deal with the matter? They had it in their own hands; and if they really wished for Sunday Closing, there was no reason why they should not practice it without legislation.
    THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked why, if the wishes of the people of Cornwall were to be considered in this matter, the wishes of the people of Portsmouth and Plymouth should have been set aside in respect to the Contagious Diseases Acts? Now, however, because some popular feeling had been excited, they were about to give Cornwall Local Option on the question of the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) was a Member of a Committee which had sat for a long period on the Drink Question, and had never proposed such legislation. If the Bill was passed, people would be driven to go secretly, instead of openly, into the public-houses; and, regarding it to be a mistake, and an interference with liberty, he urged that it should be stopped.
    On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 38.

    CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Archp.

    Rochester, L. Bp.

    Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Bedford, D.

    Carlingford, L.

    Carrington, L.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Clermont, L.

    Crewe, L.

    Crofton, L.

    Brownlow, E.

    Emly, L.

    Derby, E.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Durham, E.

    Kimberley, E.

    Methuen, L.

    Morley, E.

    Monson, L.

    Mount Edgcumbe, E. [Teller.]

    Mount-Temple, L.

    Norton, L. [Teller.]

    Saint Germans, E.

    Penryhn, L.

    Shaftesbury, E.

    Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie)

    Spencer, E.

    Strafford, E.

    Robartes, L.

    Sydney, E.

    Scarsdale, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

    Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

    Thurlow, L.

    London, L. Bp.

    Wynford, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Grafton, D.

    Minto, E.

    Manchester, D.

    Powis, E.

    Somerset, D.

    Radnor, E.

    Redesdale, E.

    Exeter, M.

    Salisbury, M.

    Hawarden, V.

    Winchester, M.

    Sherbrooke, V.

    Devon, E.

    Abinger, L.

    Fortescue, E.

    Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

    Ilchester, E.

    Blantyre, L.

    Lucan, E.

    Brabourne, L.

    Milltown, E.

    Bramwell, L. [Teller.]

    925

    Colchester, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    De L'Isle and Dudley, L

    Dorchester, L.

    Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

    Ellenborough, L.

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

    Tredegar, L.

    Lyveden, L.

    Truro, L.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Ventry, L.

    Rowton, L.

    Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) [Teller.]

    Sherborne, L.

    The numbers being equal—
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: According to the Rule of this House, which is semper prœsumitur pro negante, I must say the Not-Contents have it.
    Resolved in the negative.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.