HL Deb 06 March 1883 vol 276 cc1565-83

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

EARL STANHOPE

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a custom among persons engaged in brickyards, dockyards, shipbuilding yards, and dustyards, to have their wages paid in public-houses. This was a most pernicious custom, and one that ought to be prohibited. It seemed very natural that if wages were paid over a bar-counter the men should spend the money they received in drink. They were induced to do so in treating their companions; and they were driven to do so, as it was called, for the good of the house. One glass led to another, and another, and thus both health and wages were frittered away, and no money was taken home to their wives and families. In the poorer parts of London women were frequently seen waiting outside the gin-palaces to take their husbands home, and to get them away with sufficient money to keep a roof over their heads, and to save their families from starvation. Yet it was said that this Bill was not based upon the observation of facts, and that the inherent liberty of the subject was interfered with by it. Compulsory vaccination, which prevented the spread of small-pox, and the compulsory registration of births and deaths, which was highly conducive to the preservation of infant life, were in one sense an interference with the liberty of the subject. Again, the more recently sanctioned Education Act for the purpose of providing education for the children of the poor in England, in order that this country might not be behind Germany, and other States, was in the same sense an interference with personal liberty. Besides the temptation offered to drink by the payment of wages in public-houses, many instances had been brought to his notice of the quantity of money actually thrown away on such occasions in public-houses. Indeed, he had heard of as much as £7 or £8 being picked up on the closing of a public-house, the men having become unable, through drink, to discriminate between gold and copper. Many of the poor people also got so intoxicated on the Saturday night that they were unable to leave the public-house, and remained shut up there during the whole of Sunday. There was another argument urged against the Bill, which was that there was no necessity for it, inasmuch as the Trades Unions did not move in the matter, which they would do if the people desired it. If they did, the power of combination among the working classes was so strong that it could secure the object in view without the necessity of legislation. But the multiplicity of employments and trades rendered that impossible. He would venture to say, however, that if a plébiscite of the wives of the working classes could be taken they would all vote against the payment of wages in public-houses, and a great many of their husbands would do the same. The noble and learned Lord who had given Notice of opposition to the Bill made a clever and amusing speech at the Westminster Palace Hotel, on the 29th November last, at a meeting of the Liberty and Property Defence League. He used these words— The next thing—and upon my word they ought to be ashamed to bring this forward—is that wages are not to be paid in public-houses. He felt inclined to propose as an additional provision that if there are any small boys who receive wages they should not be paid in cakeshops because, he supposed, the object of this provision was that the men would be tempted to spend their wages in a public-house, and similar reasoning will apply to the small boys. That, no doubt, might be a strictly legal analogy, but it was not a practical analogy, as the result of the two practices was so different. He had heard that when a pastrycook took an apprentice, the first thing he did was to give him a surfeit of buns and tarts, of which he got so heartily tired that ever after he had a lively dread of confectionery and refrained from touching the stock-in-trade; but it was quite different with respect to the use of alcoholic beverages, inasmuch as one drink, instead of creating a nausea, rather stimulated the appetite for more, and the appetite grew until it became an intolerable evil that could not be repressed. The Committee of their Lordships' House on Intemperance in 1878 and 1879, reported that— Almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drinking and of drunkenness occurred on Saturday nights, that being the day on which wages are usually paid. An argument used against the Bill was that it was a new proposal; but, in fact, it was only an elargement of the existing law. The Mines Regulation Act prohibited the payment of miners' wages in public-houses, and in Ireland nobody could, under a Statute of George III., be paid in any public-house. That was a most beneficial provision. Her Majesty's Government had recently sanctioned the same principle by prohibiting the payment of Army pensioners in public-houses. It was also contrary to the Militia Acts to pay militiamen in public-houses. His noble Relative who represented the Home Office (the Earl of Rosebery) had expressed his concurrence with the principle of the Bill; but he hoped that he would this year go further and give it his support. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)

LORD BRAMWELL

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, it was with great reluctance he rose to address their Lordships. If this was a question of law, their Lordships might listen to him iii the belief that he ought at least to know something about it. He was afraid, however, there was a disposition to think that he who had a sort of title to speak on one subject ought to be silent on all others. He wished, notwithstanding, to express his opinion that this was a most mischievous proposal. He asked the House to consider what it was. It was this—that no matter how convenient it might be to the man who paid and the man who received that wages should be paid in a public-house, and no matter how inconvenient it might be that wages should be paid elsewhere, their Lordships were called upon to enact under a penalty that they should not be paid there. There was in this proposal no means of getting rid of that penalty. They were asked to lay down the hard line that the thing should not be done, and that too without giving any power to anyone in any case to permit such payment. Now, before they took that course, he would ask if the House had before it the materials on which it could base an alteration of the law in the way proposed? It was said that when wages were paid in public-houses great inconveniences took place. That might be so; but did they know that they were not counter-balanced by the inconveniences which would result from such a law as that proposed? When men received their wages in the public-house, they were at least under shelter; but enact this law, and they would have to stand outside a shed, whatever the rain, hail, sleet, or snow. At present, they and the persons who paid them could go into the public-house, which was convenient to all. If the question before the House were, as the noble Earl put it, whether the practice of paying wages in public-houses was a good one, then there could be no two opinions on the subject. It must be admitted by everyone that some mischief would result. He believed that no considerate master would desire to pay wages in a public-house, and no prudent workman would desire to receive them therein. He was quite willing to go that length; but the question before their Lordships was not as to whether the practice was a good one. What they had to consider was whether it would be convenient, or whether it would be inconvenient, that there should be a positive prohibition of wages being paid in a public-house; or, rather, whether they had the materials for forming an opinion thereon? No one was better acquainted than he was with the mischiefs that arose through drink; he had noticed in the calendars that twice the number of crimes, exclusive of cases of fraud, in which there was no element of violence, were committed on Saturday, the day on which the wages were paid and spent, as upon any other day in the week. Nay, he believed that if they took away the charges into which drunkenness did not enter as an element, the number of offences committed on Saturday were thrice as many as on any other day in the week; so that he had formulated his experience thus—Saturday, wages day; drink day; crime day. He was fully sensible of that, but that was not the question before the House. What they had to consider was whether they would lay down a rule in the way they were invited to do, and with no more materials than had been offered to them. He asked their Lordships not to do that? But, further, what was the object of the Bill? Was it to tempt the men to keep away from the public-house, to protect grown up men as if they were children from themselves? He could not but express some surprise at what had fallen from the noble Earl. He said that compulsory vaccination, which was an interference with the liberty of the subject, was, nevertheless, sanctioned by the State because of the good it did in preventing the spread of small-pox, as if that justified the interference of the State in the manner in which a man arrived at full years of discretion made use of his time and money. There was no analogy between the two cases. If there was one exception to a rule which worked well, that was no reason they should create a second exception to it. Such an argument as that would seem to show that rules were made for the purpose of having exception taken to them. This country was the most prosperous in the world. The people had more wealth, more comfort, and more happiness than the people of any other country he knew. If he were asked how that had been brought about, he would say that it was because the people had been left to themselves and had not been worried by Government, and he objected to that state of things being altered. It was true, the Trades Union Congress had approved the Bill, and the opinion of that body was entitled to great respect; but it should be remembered that it represented skilled labour, while the people who were paid in public-houses were unskilled labourers, a class who were not represented on the Congress. At the same gathering, by-the-bye, the nationalization of the land was recommended. He wondered whether the noble Earl would some day bring that recommendation before their Lordships. To pass the Bill would be to take unnecessarily a step in the dark, and he therefore begged to move that the measure be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Bramwell.)

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, that he was in some measure the author of the Bill before their Lordships, for in 1842, when dealing with the subject of the employment of women and children in mines and collieries, he proposed that no wages should be paid in places where intoxicating drinks were sold, and the proposal was carried through both Houses by acclamation. The hostility shown to the present Bill was due to the movement of a new society, called "The Liberty and Property Defence League." He now looked upon the action of that society with much alarm; and he felt convinced that if their Lordships should reject the measure they would be taking the first step in a career which would result in a reversal of that policy which, during the last 50 years, had done so much for the amelioration of the condition of the working classes. The noble and learned Lord had spoken as if that was the first time that such a measure as the one now before them had been proposed. As a matter of fact, the principle of the Bill had been before the public for 40 years, and had been affirmed by Parliament in 1842 and 1872. That being so, it was now far too late for their Lordships to question the principle. They must adduce facts. But the various Inspectors of general industries who had seen the principle enforced desired to see it applied through the length and breadth of the land. There were thousands of people who were just as incapable as children of defending themselves against the dangers attending the present practice of paying wages in public-houses. The Missionaries of the City of London Mission—and they could have no better authority—gave it as their opinion that the practice was hurtful in every way, and led to drunkenness and every form of crime that followed in the train of drunkenness. Many foremen, it should be remembered, were part-owners of public-houses, and the men under them were compelled to choose between accepting payment in a public-house and being sent to the right about. He did not speak of the large employers of labour; they had seen the duty and benefit of saving their people from such temptation. Labourers in dockyards—not Her Majesty's Dockyards, but those yards where mercantile ships were laden and unladen—were often subjected to pressure of that kind. These were a very numerous class, and their employment was precarious, depending on the arrival of ships and the weather. When the demand was brisk, they got 19s. or 20s. a week. When trade was not brisk, when no ships were coming in, or when the weather was adverse, they made nothing at all. A clergyman, a friend of his, who had the largest number of this class under his charge of any clergyman in London, told him that their average earnings throughout the year were not more than 9s. a week. Was he to be told that these men, when so many others were ready to take their places, could for a moment refuse to go into a public-house to receive their wages, in which public-house they were oftentimes made to drink during many hours before wages were paid? It was in defence of these men that he begged their Lordships to read this Bill a second time. The principle of the legislation of the last half-century was that of defending the weak against the strong; and he implored their Lordships not to depart now from that principle, which had been productive of so much good, and which had done so much honour to the nation. They were told that they were constantly interfering with the liberty of the subject. Well, if they did interfere, it was no longer matter of experiment, but a proof that it was to the benefit of the nation. The noble Lord, in his speech at the Westminster Hotel, thought he had found an admirable illustration in the case of the payment of the wages of boys in sweetmeat shops. If they could prove that that practice had led to such evils as those which this Bill was intended to meet, he would support a measure to put it down. Volenti non fit injuria. If this was an interference with the liberty of the working man, it was one which the working man would heartily welcome. If they took a walk through the districts which these people inhabited they would find that seven-tenths of the men and every one of the women would cry out in the name of God to give them this legislation. He was certain it would confer an inestimable benefit upon them. If the House of Lords were to throw out a measure of this kind, which those people considered necessary for their happiness, the country would deeply regret it. He hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to this Bill, which, in his conscience, he believed to be demanded alike by the law of God and the welfare of the people.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

said, it was impossible to listen to the speech of the noble Earl who had just sat down without being impressed with his earnestness and without approving the object he had in view. But the object of the noble Earl was one thing, and the means by which he wished to carry out that object was another. This Bill was a sample of a kind of legislation of which they had had of late years a good deal, but which Parliament should view with feelings of the greatest distrust. They were asked to protect people perfectly well able to protect themselves. Some members of a particular class were in the habit of taking advantage of the payment of wages in public-houses on Saturday afternoons in order to prove themselves thriftless and intemperate; and, therefore, the noble Earl proposed to put the whole of that class into leading-strings. They were described in the Bill as "working men, labourers, journeymen artificers, handicraftsmen," and so on. Why, these were the persons who at present had the Parliamentary franchise in boroughs, and in a short time, he presumed, would have it in counties. They were the men to whose arbitrament the control of our national finances, as well as questions of peace and war and other great issues, would be entrusted; and yet the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) told their Lordships that they were not to be trusted within sight of a quart pot, or within earshot of a beer engine. No doubt this kind of interference with personal liberty was sometimes unavoidable. The noble Earl gave two instances, unfortunately chosen—those of national education and vaccination. But surely the case for interference in respect of these stood upon very different ground. If there were no such interference in the case of education, we should have had a whole generation growing up in ignorance; and if there were no interference with regard to vaccination, it would be a matter of certainty that small-pox would spread over the community. Such interference properly took place where the physical health or moral welfare of the great mass of the community was concerned; but that had not been shown to be the case in the present instance. In his opinion, there were three conditions which ought to be fulfilled before interference of this kind was resorted to. The first condition was that it should be demonstrated that there was an overwhelming necessity for interference; the second, that the interference would be effectual; and the third, that the inconvenience occasioned by it should not outweigh the advantages which might result. His noble Friend had clearly failed to make out that in this case those conditions were fulfilled. He had given their Lordships' House some vague statements as to Saturday afternoon drinking; but it did not follow that the Bill would stop Saturday afternoon drinking. What was to prevent men going to drink at public-houses after they had received their wages in some other buildings—very likely next door to, or, at any rate, in the same street as, the public-house? It was possible that a small increase of sobriety might result from the passing of the Bill; but it was notorious that a great number of persons would be put to the greatest possible inconvenience, as public-houses often were the only places where the men could rest and got refreshment after their week's work. He hoped that it would not be supposed that he was not in favour of temperance. On the contrary, he believed the great temperance movement now abroad in the country was producing a large amount of good; but he disbelieved in these Acts of grandmotherly solicitude intended to make people do what they ought to do for themselves. It was not by such legislation they would make persons thrifty or temperate. He should hope a great deal more from the effects of education, from affording the working classes opportunities for investing their savings, and, above all, from providing for them cheerful amusements not at present within their reach. He should regret any legislation which would strengthen the impression that it was the business of Parliament to do for the people what the people ought to do for themselves.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, the noble Marquess who had just sat down said that under this Bill workmen who had been paid their wages could still go into a neighbouring public-house. In that case, however, it would be a voluntary act, and we, the supporters of this Bill, wanted liberty, and that no man should be compelled to go into a public-house. If, as had been said, it rained or snowed outside, and the publican provided a warm room for the workmen whilst they were waiting for their wages, it was human nature that they should feel bound to make a return for this hospitality, and order something for the good of the house. There was another cause which led to the workmen having to wait a long time while their wages were being paid, and that was that the Department of the Government which looked after the Mint did not take care to provide a sufficient supply of small silver coinage. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), who opposed the Bill, had referred to the amount of drunkenness and crime which accompanied Saturday pay days; and he had said that this Bill only provided for navvies and such like labourers, who did not belong to trade unions. Well, those were the very men who most required the protection which this Bill would give them; and a Circular had been sent round to their Lordships by the opponents of the Bill, to the effect that it showed distrust of the wage-winners; but their own wives knew them best, and all of them would ask their Lordships to pass this Bill.

LORD BRABOURNE

observed, that, whatever abstract reasons there might be in favour of the measure, the practical inconvenience of abolishing the custom of paying wages in public-houses ought to be considered. In his opinion, there was something of a melancholy character in the speech which the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had made, because it meant that after the many years spent by the Legislature in promoting education and other means to improve the masses, they were still in such a miserable and hopeless condition that they were unable to protect themselves against the tyranny of foremen or the designs of publicans. This Bill might be a little step; but if they went on in the direction indicated by its provisions, the end would be that all their liberties would be gone, and that no one could make a bargain without being watched by a Government Inspector. Such legislation was quite foreign to all old-fashioned ideas of English liberty; and, as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had pointed out, this Bill would not be effectual. If there were foremen who obliged the men under them to spend their wages in particular public-houses in which they had an interest, what was to prevent them exercising their authority in the same way, even though the wages were not paid in the public-house itself? They might simply pay the wages in the open air, or in some room near to the public-house, unless, indeed, as a consequence of this Bill, they summoned the men to some place convenient to themselves, but at a distance from the men's own homes, where the temptation might still be at hand. It was impossible to prevent people from carrying out their business in a manner most convenient to themselves. They prayed daily that they should not be led into temptation; but some people in these modern days wished to do away with temptation altogether, instead of elevating the moral condition of man so as to enable him to resist it. This was an impossibility, and those attempts at what had been well called grandmotherly legislation would be found not only inconvenient, but unpalatable to the very people for whom it was intended.

LORD COTTESLOE

said, that many working men altogether declined to enter a public-house except when the master compelled them to do so in order to receive their wages. That was a most arbitrary act on the part of the master, and he doubted whether it was strictly legal. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time, as its principle was sound and good; but its provisions, if too stringent, might be altered in Committee. He gave Notice of his intention to move an Amendment in Committee in order to allow publicans to pay their own servants in their own houses.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

said, he found himself in a difficult position with regard to this measure; but if there was no one who took a more unfavourable view of this Bill than he did, it would not be in much danger. An appeal had been made to the Government for more support than they had been able to give to the Bill last year. As far as he knew, the Government had not changed their attitude towards the principle of the Bill since it was before the House a year ago. They always regarded measures of this character, and this particular measure, as being useful, if not very extended in their scope; but they bad not thought it their duty to become the promoters of the Bill, or to take an active part in pushing it through. His noble Relative (Earl Stanhope) had referred to the few observations which he (the Earl of Rosebery) had made last year with regard to this Bill; and he was not disposed to qualify them, or to express any different opinion, notwith- standing all the philosophical speeches they bad heard this evening. The prospects of his noble Relative's Bill were better than might be expected, although the occasion had been taken advantage of for the purpose of fleshing the maiden sword of the Liberty and Property Defence League, and for displaying the prowess of that body. He really did not see, in spite of that attack, and of all the arguments they had heard on this occasion, what had occurred particularly to alter the attitude of this House with respect to this Bill since last year. What occurred last year? His noble Relative had given ample opportunity to this House to discuss and consider this Bill. It had passed this House without a dissentient voice. So unanimously had it passed, that one little mild sentence of criticism and regret which had fallen from himself was the only sound which broke the general murmur of approval in this House. If there was one thing on which he thought their Lordships might justly pride themselves, it was that this House was not a changeable Assembly. It was not an Assembly that might be opposed to one set of principles one year and to another set another; and, therefore, this was an opportunity of preserving a consistency of feeling and action which was denied to what was euphemistically called "another place." He wanted to ask what would be the attitude of this House if, having passed this Bill without a single comment, with the one trifling exception to which he had alluded, they were to change their opinion and reject the Bill upon which they had not even bestowed criticism last year? There was only one thing which had occurred to change the attitude of this House since the Bill was passed last year. That was the formation of the Liberty and Property Defence League, and he could not honestly think that that was a sufficiently serious reason for depriving the promoters of the Bill and the working classes of the benefits which it would confer. He confessed that his sympathy with his noble Relative in regard to this measure was not quite so strong as perhaps it ought to be. He sympathized very much with what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne), when he said that after all they had done to raise the social condition of working men, it did seem a little humiliating that his noble Relative should have come forward with measures of this kind to secure the working men from the temptations of the public-house. It was quite true that the working men should be superior to those temptations, and it had been observed by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) that the trade unions ought to have power to suppress this traffic. Well, they had power as regarded skilled artizans, but this Bill was not in defence of skilled artizans. That was where the argument of the noble and learned Lord and those who had supported him was wrong. It was not the skilled artizans that the Bill was intended to help; it was the humble classes of unskilled labourers who had no trade unions. He had been delighted to hear the speeches that had been made; but it would have given him greater pleasure if they had had somewhat more definite and detailed information.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Hear, hear!

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

, continuing, said, he was glad to hear that cheer from the noble Marquess, and he could assure him that any contributions of statistics from him would be welcome to the Government. He would now bring his little contribution of information to the House, and that, he ventured to say, was worth all the philosophical arguments of the noble Lord. He had received a letter from a labourer near Sittingbourne describing the manner in which brickmakers were paid their wages. The letter was vouched for by a Member of Parliament in whom lie had the fullest confidence. It stated that the brick-makers worked in gangs of from four to ten. One received the orders from the foreman, and kept account of the work done by his gang during the week. When Saturday came, one man went to the office and took the whole of the money to his gang, sometimes receiving it in gold and silver, and sometimes in notes, and it was taken to the public-house for the purpose of paying the wages. The first thing was to get change, and, of course, every man was expected to drink something, and some of them had as much as three pints while the change was being obtained; and, having reached the "don't care mood," many of them got drunk before they left the house. In other cases, the publican kept a record of the drink supplied to the men during the week, and deducted the amount before the wages were paid, the wages being thus hypothecated to pay for drink. Facts like these, relating to men who had no power of combination, and who worked in comparative isolation, were worth all the highly strung phrases they had heard that night. He would now give them another piece of practical information. When this Bill passed their Lordship's House last year, it went down to the other House, and was taken charge of by Mr. Broadhurst, whom he considered quite as good a Representative of the feelings of his class as the noble and learned Lord opposite. Mr. Broadhurst received a letter, not from a working man, but from the Chief Constable of a Northern city, who wrote— Pray press on your Bill and pass it as soon as possible. No greater boon could be given to the public than this Bill. Its effect would be to suppress a number of public-houses, which practically live on the system which this Bill condemns. These and other facts, although not so extended as he might wish them to be, pointed most overwhelmingly in favour of the passing of this Bill; and he thought that unless facts of a weightier character than mere abstract arguments were brought forward against the Bill, Her Majesty's Government had a right to preserve the attitude of benevolent neutrality, which was in accordance with their declarations last year.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the difference, as it appeared to him, between their situation last year and this year was, that last year the question was not debated at all, while this year an interesting and instructive debate had taken place upon it; and he confessed the impression on his mind was that the House was not sufficiently informed to proceed with legislation upon this subject. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had spoken of the attitude of the Government as one of benevolent neutrality; but he would rather call the noble Earl's criticism a drench of iced water, and that was all that Her Majesty's Government had been able to contribute towards the discussion of this Bill. This did not seem to him a very suitable mode of dealing with a subject of great importance. Either the Government must have some strong reason for passing this Bill, or they ought not to pass it. In support of the Bill, the noble Earl had said that a great number of public-houses would be suppressed—that was to say, that a considerable number of Her Majesty's subjects would be deprived of the livelihood that they now gained; but they were the persons probably who would be least inconvenienced by the measure. It was admitted that the large employers of labour would not be affected by the Bill. It was the small employers of labour who could not provide pay offices, and who could not conveniently pay their men anywhere else than in the public-house, who would be affected by it. Had they a right to inflict a great loss and inconvenience upon unknown numbers of people in various parts of the country, and in various trades, without having made any inquiry whatever to ascertain what was the precise nature of the operation which they were performing, and what was the precise extent of the inconvenience which they would cause? This seemed to him exceedingly rash and hasty legislation. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) had read a letter from Sittingbourne, upon which his case was apparently based; but that letter showed the kind of random statistics on which they were proceeding, for the letter, if he understood it right, referred to a case where wages were not paid in the public-house at all, but at a place near the public-house. Supposing the evil was as great as the supporters of the Bill said it was—supposing it was an evil calling for legislative interference, should they not take sufficient measures of inquiry to ascertain whether the provisions of this Bill would meet the evil in the right way? Were they sure that the measure would have any effective or beneficial operation at all? Was it founded upon a sufficient knowledge of the facts? Had they a right to strike in upon an unknown number of persons and trades, and inflict an amount of injury which they were wholly unable to calculate without having some official investigation into the facts upon which their legislation was to be based? Upon that ground alone he should certainly be unable to assent to the second reading of the Bill. But he was not so entirely indifferent to the abstract arguments upon which the noble Earl had poured his contempt. It was said that the principle involved was known to the law. They had interfered on other occasions with the liberty of the subject; and, therefore, because they had done it by way of exception in the past, they were never to plead the liberty of the subject as a thing which Parliament ought to consider. They had, he dared say, rightly interfered in the past, on grave cause being shown, with the liberty of the subject; but that was not the slightest justification for interfering now, unless there was a proved case, and a proved benefit to be obtained thereby. Undoubtedly, they might carry to bigotry the dogmas which the Liberty and Property Defence League was instituted to defend. They might lay down the rule too absolutely that they must never interfere with the liberty of the subject; but that did not diminish the importance of the great principle of allowing every man to take care of himself, so long as he did not interfere with the welfare of his neighbour. Language of the most exaggerated character had been used in this debate. The case of these men had been talked of as a thraldom. It was a thraldom to the extent that they were put within sight of beer, and it was left to them whether they should drink it or not. He should be sorry to believe that it had come to this—that they had to interfere by Parliamentary action to prevent grown men from yielding to the temptation to get drunk. But if they were resolved to do this—if it appeared necessary that for high considerations of the public weal they ought to disregard those essential principles of liberty on which their whole polity and prosperity were founded, at all events they ought to do it after careful, deliberate, and sufficient inquiry.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that all his sympathies were with the general principles laid down by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell) who opposed the Bill; and he was not disposed to sneer at what had been called the philosophic character of his remarks. He agreed with the general principle that there ought not to be undue interference with the liberty of individuals capable of protecting themselves. They were warned—and it was often a wise warning—not to take the first step; and the noble and learned Lord seemed to regard this as a first stop. But it was rather late in the day to talk of first steps—it appeared to him the first step had been taken long ago. Vaccination and education were spoken of; but all these were questions of degree. As it had been stated, with regard to mines, employers were prevented from paying the wages of miners in public-houses. Parliament, in amending the truck system, had seriously interfered with liberty of contract between grown-up persons; and it had rightly done this on account of the abuses which grew up in a system capable, if properly conducted, of conferring great benefits on working people, by securing them a better quantity of goods at cheaper rates than were otherwise obtainable. There was no such advantage in the payment of wages at public-houses; and the case against it was very much stronger. It was a most extraordinary warning that they ought not to be rash on the present occasion. The Bill passed the second reading last year; and if it were not rash to pass it then, how could it be more rash for their Lordships now, after a year's reflection, to take the same course? For his own part, he confessed lie was not violently in love with the measure; but still its advantages appeared obvious, and it was a very strong point that it was desired by the labouring classes, to whom it particularly applied, that it should pass.

EARL CAIRNS

said, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on this measure. In the first place, he agreed with the noble Earl opposite that that House was free to take what course it pleased this year, notwithstanding the fact that last year the Bill passed almost sub silentio. He did not like the Bill last year, and he did not like it this year; but still, on reflection, it appeared to him that it would be a matter of regret if it were rejected on the second reading. He disliked, as much as any of their Lordships could, legislation which went to restrain freedom of contract, or any arrangements which employers and employed might make with each other. He looked with much jealousy on a measure of this kind, and his first impulse was to oppose it; but it should be borne in mind that they were asked to deal with places which stood in an exceptional position. Public-houses were licensed by the State, and they could not exist without the licence of the State. This was part of the legislation of the country; and, therefore, he held that the State had a perfect right to see that the places which it licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors were properly used for legitimate purposes, and that they were not used for purposes which could lead to any public injury or disadvantage. He thought this was part and parcel of the conditions under which houses of this kind received a licence from the State. Therefore, if their Lordships found a public-house was used for a purpose which was not legitimately a purpose for which the place was licensed, and which, in itself, caused a public evil, he maintained that they had a perfect right to say that a public-house should not be used for such a purpose. For instance, there was the question as to how far public-houses were to be used for particular purposes at election times. He did not wish to prejudge the question; but no one disputed that it was a legitimate subject for legislation if an evil were seen to arise. As to this particular measure, he said it was clear that the humble class of labourers to whom it applied were bound hand and foot, and that they must, under the existing system, go to the public-house to receive their wages. He agreed that working men ought not to be placed in that position. The wages should be paid elsewhere, and the public-house should not be used for the purpose. It had been urged that, although the men went to a public-house, they might, nevertheless, abstain from taking liquor. Well, a great deal of the virtues of many of themselves depended on the absence of temptation; and if they mechanically brought people face to face with temptation, they were doing a thing which was wrong, and which ought, if possible, to be avoided. He thought the Bill would do a great deal of good by preventing the continuance of the present system. He was aware of the danger of legislation of this kind; but still, speaking for himself, he thought the arguments in favour of the second reading were stronger than the arguments against it.

On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 58; Not-Contents 20: Majority 38.

CONTENTS.
Selborne E. (L. Chancellor.) Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)
Hertford, M. Coleridge, L.
Northampton, M. Congleton, L.
Cottesloe, L.
Belmore, E. Crewe, L.
Cairns, E. Denman, L.
Camperdown, E. Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
Derby, E. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Granville, E.
Kimberley, E. Methuen, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Monson, L.
Manvers, E. Mount-Temple, L.
Morley, E. Penryhn, L.
Nelson, E. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Northbrook, E.
Onslow, E. Reay, L.
Redesdale, E. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]
Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown)
Stanhope, E. [Teller.]
Stradbroke, E. Saltoun, L.
Waldegrave, E. Sandhurst, L.
Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
London, L. Bp.
Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Belper, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) Sudeley, L.
Thurlow, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.) Tweeddale, L. (M. Tweeddale.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) Ventry, L.
Walsingham, L.
Carlingford, L. Watson, L.
Carrington, L. Waveney, L.
Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.) Wimborne, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Richmond, D. Brabourne, L.
Bramwell, L. [Teller.]
Lansdowne, M. [Teller.] Fitzgerald, L.
Salisbury, M. Foxford, L. (E. Limerich.)
Dartrey, E. Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
Lathom, E.
Sondes, E. Leconfield, L.
Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore)
Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Sherbrooke, V.
Sidmouth, V. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.) Windsor, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.