Lords Sitting of 17 June 1884

MINUTES.
— Sat First in Parliament —; The Viscount Torrington, after the death of his uncle; the Earl of Sandwich, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *; School, &c. Buildings (Ireland) * (129); Newcastle Chapter * (130).
Second Reading — Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) * (104); Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (No. 2) (103); Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities (Scotland) * (101); Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) (98), negatived; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) (102), negatived; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Amendment * (125); Metropolitan Police * (118).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * (70); Great Seal (83).
Committee — Report — Royal Military Asylum Chelsea (Transfer) * (114).
Third Reading—Gas Provisional Orders (No. 2) (Emsworth Gas, &c.) * (105), and passed.

ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE YEOMANRY RIOT AT LICHFIELD.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTERsaid, he desired to ask the Government whether they had any information of the recent occurrences at Lichfield? He had, on the previous evening, read with pain an announcement commenting with undue severity on irregularities and riotous conduct on the part of one of the finest, best disciplined, most numerous, and most gallantly officered regiments of Yeomanry in the country. He arrived late last night at Lichfield and found everything perfectly quiet; in fact, anything more solemn and dull than the appearance of the town could not be conceived. There was a perfect absence of excitement and of population in the streets. This morning he made inquiries as to the actual occurrences, and, if he was to give credit—as he undoubtedly did—to the word of three officers whom he consulted, none of whom had the slightest knowledge of his intention of bringing the question before their Lordships, the story that had been circulated in the newspapers was very enormously exaggerated. He questioned the three officers separately, one of them being Colonel Levett, the Representative of Lichfield in Parliament, whom he had known for 40 years. The newspapers stated that a large body of officers got upon the stage of some music-hall, locked up the manager, possessed themselves of the stage, and committed other enormities, frightening the ladies of the ballet, who, in his opinion, were not so easily frightened as the writer of the report seemed to imagine. He believed the real truth to be that a number of officers occupied the front benches, and that one of them joined in the chorus. The manager, who in a great measure depended for support on the patronage of the officers, came forward and characterized the officers in the front row as a set of snobs. He hardly knew the meaning of that word; but he had heard it sometimes, and he supposed it might be called an opprobrious terra. There was a slight disturbance and the manager was locked up in his box, and very properly too. He might consider that he got off very cheaply. It was stated that on the following day there was great excitement with a mob in the street,

  551
  and that the face of Dr. Johnson's statue was blackened by some members of the Yeomanry. He believed there was not a word of truth in that, nor in the statement that a private of the corps, who was arrested and who was handcuffed by the police, was rescued by the men of the regiment, and that the handcuffs were sawn off. Such a charge as this was a direct libel on a gallant regiment. The fact was that, as was always the case when the Yeomanry assembled at Lichfield, a large number of Birmingham roughs poured into the town, and these roughs surrounded one of the yeomen and provoked him to fight, and that yeoman did fight. He hoped he would not live to see the day when a yeoman would not fight when occasion rose. An unfortunate incident, no doubt, occurred that night, mainly owing to the excitement which prevailed; and it had been so falsified in the newspapers that he had felt it his duty to mention it in the House, in justice to a deceased relative of his, who had been connected with the regiment for 40 years, and who had been urged to stay in when, from his delicate health, he had tendered his resignation. He considered it not only his duty to his relative's memory, knowing he was a great disciplinarian himself, but also out of consideration for the other officers of the regiment, many of whom were unknown to him, though some of them were his friends, to bring the matter before the House. He hoped the Government, with the civil and military authorities, would cause strict inquiry and denounce the untruths which had been circulated so industriously, not only in the London newspapers, by the telegraph, but in more impulsive and greedy organs of the Press, which were ready to take everything they could get. He thought that, when a regiment which could not stand up for itself was thus attacked, every inquiry should be made; and he trusted that if it was acquitted, the Government would express an opinion to the effect, and say that it did not deserve the blame attached to it by some local and provincial faction.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I am glad my noble Friend has put this Question, and has taken this opportunity of stating what he knows in regard to this matter. I confess that when I saw the report of this occurrence, as mentioned by my noble Friend, in one of the evening
  552
  papers last night, I was immensely surprised; because the regiment is one that has been distinguished for the efficiency and the admirable discipline that has always characterized it under its late distinguished commanding officer. But I confess I could not credit the account given of these proceedings, and I thought there must be some mistake, or that the matter must have been grossly exaggerated. However, a telegram was despatched to Lichfield to inquire as to the truth and the nature of these occurrences. A further telegram was sent this morning. I regret extremely we have not yet received any answer to these telegrams; but I still hope to be able to bring it down to the House to-night.
  LORD DORCHESTER: It is the annual Inspection.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: No doubt; and I am bound to say that I think the fact of the Inspecting Officer being there and holding an inspection to-day affords strong presumptive evidence that at least the reports which have reached your Lordships are extremely exaggerated. All I can say at present is that careful inquiry will be made into the truth of those reports, and great care will be taken that those concerned shall not be visited with undeserved blame.
  Afterwards,
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he had received the following telegram with respect to the subject: —
  "From General Officer commanding Northern District, York, to Adjutant General, Horse Guards. Inspector of Auxiliary Cavalry telegraphs from Lichfield, absolutely no foundation for report in evening papers, concerning riotous conduct among Yeomanry. Men have behaved remarkably well. One yeoman was set upon by roughs. Have ordered Court of Inquiry to record evidence. Am writing."

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL—(No. 103.)
(The Earl of Redesdale.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL—(No. 103.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES),in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to meet the charges which were brought against those who opposed the Bill introduced into their Lordships' House recently by

  553
  the noble Lord (Lord Balfour). It was said that in some places where pigeon-shooting was practised gross cruelties were inflicted on the birds. He was sure everybody was desirous that such cruelty should be put down, and the object of the Bill was to enable that to be done. The Bill provided that where cruelties were practised for the purpose of making the birds fly in certain directions when released from the traps, heavy penalties would be incurred; and to meet the great difficulty which had been experienced in this matter—namely, the want of facilities for detecting the cruelties, Justices of the Peace were empowered to give an order to proper persons to attend the meetings for the purpose of ascertaining if such practices were resorted to.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, there could be no doubt that cruelty was practised in connection with pigeon-shooting. Birds were blinded in one eye, their wings were broken, or some of their feathers were pulled out. Sometimes they were brought to be shot at in such a miserable state of exhaustion that they failed to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended in consequence of their being too weak to fly. The present Bill was very inadequate and imperfect. By the 2nd clause it was proposed to subject to a penalty of £5, for every bird mutilated for the purpose of being shot at, any person who should use any ground for the purpose of shooting birds from traps or other appliances. According to his interpretation of the clause, a bird might be cruelly mutilated, and yet the keeper of the ground would not be punishable unless the bird was liberated for the precise purpose of being shot at. The 3rd clause proposed to enable the police to enter the ground and examine the birds to be shot at in order to enable them to discover cases of mutilation. No power, however, was given to punish those who might be guilty of such mutilation. There had, under the existing law, been many cases in which men had been found guilty of mutilation upon evidence obtained after birds had been shot at. Under this Bill the police would not be empowered to examine birds after they had been shot in order to discover previous mutilation. The 2nd clause
  554
  said that the bird must be injured be as to effect its flying. The case of a bird blinded in one eye would, therefore, not be met. Then the Bill would not touch the man who shot at a mutilated bird, unless it could be shown that he knew beforehand that the bird was mutilated. Surely if the bird was shown to have been mutilated it would not be too much to assume that the man who shot at it had knowledge of the mutilation. The noble Earl seemed to think that the Bill would do a great deal of good by allowing application to be made to the magistrate for permission to two persons to enter ground set apart for pigeon-shooting. That provision, however, would be of little use, for the mere approach of a respectable person to such locality was enough to excite suspicion among those engaged in shooting. Any person not having "villain" or "knave" stamped upon his face would be set down at once by those so engaged as an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He held that the present difficulties of detectives in obtaining conviction would not be diminished by this Bill, which he objected to, because it would be taken as giving the sanction of the House to a course which their Lordships collectively did not approve. Pigeon-shooting was a sport defended by very few. Nobody thought it manly, for it was not conducive to health or to the formation of virile courage. On the other hand, it was hopelessly and irretrievably surrounded by vicious circumstances. The evils with which it was accompanied would not be got rid of except by a measure much more stringent than that now proposed.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he was of opinion that the principles upon which the present Bill was framed were right. He congratulated the noble Earl who had proposed it upon his former opposition, to a very ill-considered measure on the same subject. That measure proposed to put an end to an amusement because it was connected with some abuses, and it reminded him of the action of certain people who shut the public out of their parks, because some scoundrel or other once cut flowers, or did some other objectionable thing. There was something hypocritical in the attempt that had been made in their Lordships' House to stop pigeon-shooting on the ground of cruelty; for if properly con-

  555
  ducted the sport was not more cruel than many of the sports in which their Lordships indulged. He did not suppose that there was any sensible man who thought that their Lordships were not anxious to put down cruelty. He would only add that he regarded the objections to the Bill as almost verbal, and considered that alterations could easily be made in Committee to render the action of the police more effectual.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSthanked the noble Earl for having introduced this Bill, and said the objections which had been urged against its machinery could be remedied when the Bill went into Committee.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, he should be happy to consider the objections which had been urged by the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), and he would endeavour to meet his views by Amendments in Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 98.)
(The Lord Suddeley)
HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.—(No. 98.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD SUDELEY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he would refer for one moment to the question of Privilege raised by the noble Marquess opposite when the matter was brought before their Lordships' House before Whitsuntide. Since then the matter had been considered by the official authorities of the other House; and he was empowered to state that, in their opinion, this Bill did not in any way affect the Privilege of the House of Commons. In their opinion this Bill was, to all intents and purposes, a private one; all the incidents of a Private Bill being attached to it — the Standing Orders must be complied with, and the Bill go to a Select Committee. They considered it to come under Clause 226 of their Standing Orders, which stated that the House would not insist upon its privileges with regard to any clause in Private Bills sent down from the House of Lords which referred to tolls and
  556
  charges for services performed not in the nature of taxes but of rates levied and assessed by Local Authorities for local purposes. The object of the Bill was a very simple one. It was to make arrangements for placing in the hands of the proper Local Authority, whoever that might be, the duty of maintaining the now streets created in effecting the Hyde Park Corner improvements. In the ordinary course these new streets being properly completed and open for public traffic would as highways come under the care of the parish in which they were situated. In this particular case very considerable difficulties had arisen. It appeared that the Green Park, at the corner of which these improvements had been made, was entirely in the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, while the adjoining streets of Piccadilly and Grosvenor Place were in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square. The parochial authorities of St. Martin-in-the-Fields declined naturally to take over these new streets, on the ground that the inhabitants resided at the other end of the parish, and were not benefited by the improvements. They further contended that as the traffic would be diverted from Grosvenor Place and Piccadilly, thereby proportionately reducing the expense of repair in those streets, the cost of maintenance of the new ones should be borne by St. George's, as the parish derived a direct benefit from the improvements. They also said very fairly that having no houses abutting on the new roads, they could not recoup themselves for their increased expenditure by means of new rates. They said that the Green Park was an outlying tongue of land from which they received under £5 in rates; and, lastly, that the new street, being clearly to the profit of St. George's, should, in accordance with the precedent when Piccadilly was widened, be maintained at the cost of the parish benefited, and they did not see why rich St. George's should throw this burden on poor St. Martin's. The authorities of St. George's, on the other hand, objected to maintaining these roads on the ground that by the existing law no parish was bound to maintain a road situated in another parish. Secondly, they stated that they had not been consulted. Thirdly, they disliked having to pay an annual charge of £1,500 to £1,600 a-year, or, indeed, anything, if

  557
  they could get out of it. But the parish of St. George's seemed to forget that they had obtained a very considerable benefit, and that when the traffic was diffused, as it now was, over so large an area it must very largely lessen the expense of maintaining that part where the traffic had been congested, and where the road had consequently been much cut up. Their wish appeared to be to throw the expense either upon the Metropolitan Board of Works or upon the Office of Works. The Metropolitan Board of Works, as to whom the First Commissioner suggested that as there were so many difficulties in the way they might be willing to take over these duties themselves in the same manner as they had undertaken the maintenance of the Thames Embankment, replied that not being a road authority the Board would be unable to take charge except by statutory power; besides which, following all precedents of similar improvements, the streets should be maintained by the parish or parishes in which they were situated. The Thames Embankment seemed to have been a special case, in which there were so many authorities interested that it was thought desirable it should be vested in the charge of one responsible body; but this was the only case where the Metropolitan Board of Works had undertaken the maintenance of any improvement. So far as the Office of Works was concerned, it could not undertake to keep these roads in order, because Parliament would not vote the money for maintaining Metropolitan improvements of this character. Met by all these difficulties, the First Commissioner of Works placed the matter before the Metropolitan Board of Works as the great municipal authority, and asked for an expression of their opinion. They replied on the 20th of June, 1883, that—
  "The best course would be that statutory power should be obtained to enable the Board to determine by what parish or parishes the roads should be hereafter maintained."
  The present Bill was, therefore, brought forward to carry out this suggestion. Now, what were the objections? It was urged, in the first place, that the Metropolitan Board of Works were an interested party in the matter, and, therefore, were not impartial, and ought not to be appointed to determine who should be responsible for
  558
  the work. Secondly, that it was purely a Metropolitan improvement, and not of a parochial character; and that the whole Metropolis ought to bear a proportion of the expense incurred. Further, that if there was any doubt on this subject, it was cleared up by the fact of the Metropolitan Board of Works contributing £20,000 towards the making of the improvements. It must be remembered that the Metropolitan Board of Works was a body representing the interests and communities of a great part of London; and that by the contribution they had given towards the improvements they had made over an amount which at 3 per cent interest meant a perpetual sum of £600 a-year, which they considered a fair quota towards the necessary expenses from the general ratepayers of London. Then, again, it should not be forgotten that the appointment of the Board of Works as referee was by no means a new idea. By the Act of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 71, the Metropolitan Board of Works was authorized, on the making of new streets or improvements in different parishes, to apportion the contribution by each towards the cost of maintenance as they might think fit. Unfortunately, by this Act they were only authorized to make such apportionment when the new streets were in two or more different parishes; and as in this case the improvement was made entirely in one parish, the Board was technically unable to carry out this provision, however clear it might be hold to be that the parish of St. Martin ought not to bear the charges for maintenance of these improvements. He had a great many precedents to show how this apportionment had been carried out in the great improvements which had been made in Northumberland Avenue and many other places. Those precedents showed clearly that Parliament looked upon the Board as the proper authority to determine such questions. With this clearly before them, he hardly thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Powis) could be serious in wishing to throw out the Bill on its second reading. This was a Hybrid Bill, and as such must go before a Select Committee to be considered on its merits. If it was thought by the Committee that the Metropolitan Board of Works was not the proper authority to arbitrate in the matter, then it would be quite competent

  559
  for the Committee to decide in what proportions the two parishes and the Metropolitan Board of Works themselves should contribute, and to alter the Bill accordingly. There were in this matter a great many interested parties; and it seemed only right that the question should be reviewed by such a tribunal as a Select Committee, with all parties properly represented. He ventured to draw their Lordships' attention before he concluded to the consequences of the throwing out of this Bill. Only two things were possible. Either these great street improvements at Hyde Park Corner must be stopped and the traffic diverted to the old channel—as it was quite certain Parliament would not vote money to maintain a Metropolitan road —or else it would be necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill following the precedent created in the year 1844, when Piccadilly was widened; to sever that portion of the Green Park from St. Martin-in-the-Fields and throw it into St. George's, when it would then be liable for the entire maintenance of the new streets; whereas if they sent this Bill before a Select Committee it was probable it would have to pay a proportion only. It seemed to the interest of everyone concerned that this Bill should go before a Select Committee to be thoroughly investigated, and he trusted their Lordships would consent to give it a second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE EARL OF POWISremarked, that the Bill which the noble Lord had just described involved the question whether a parish could be properly taxed for works constructed outside its borders with regard to which its Vestry had not only not been consulted, but had not been allowed to say a word. What was the history of this matter? When, in 1882, the Chief Commissioner of Works was inspired by a laudable enthusiasm to make Hyde Park Corner perpetuate the memory of his own official career as Edile instead of the memory of the Duke of Wellington, he devised the roads which formed the subject of this Bill, and persuaded the Metropolitan Board to give him £20,000 towards the expenses of the works. He was now engaged in removing the Duke's statue. When the plan was first started, as this
  560
  land all lay in the Green Park, the First Commissioner was under no necessity of applying to Parliament for compulsory powers to take land. He gave no Parliamentary notice in The London Gazette, and simply communicated with the Metropolitan Board. The matter became one of public notoriety, and the Vestry of St. George's wrote to ask whether they might be permitted to see the plans, and make representations upon the subject. The answer of the Office of Works was not contained in the Correspondence before their Lordships' House; but it was a distinct and peremptory refusal. It was clear, however, that in May, 1882, the Office of Works had not conceived the idea that it would be convenient to tax St. George's for these works. It was suggested that the Metropolitan Board should undertake the matter; but they declined. The Vestry of St. George's also pointed out that the works were outside their parish, and that they ought not to be taxed for the maintenance of those works. The Office of Works then sent a letter to the Vestry of St. Martin's, desiring them to take over the roads on the 1st of May last year. This letter was sent after the communication to the effect that that Vestry ought not to be taxed; but it did not succeed. In the month of July a Bill was introduced which would practically throw the roads upon the parish. The Standing Orders, however, were not complied with, and the Government did not venture in that House to move their suspension. Then they came to the beginning of the present year. This was a great Metropolitan improvement, as much used by the traffic from all parts of London as by that of the locality, and it would not be fair to put the proposed tax on the parish. In 1842, when Piccadilly was widened, a portion of the Green Park was added to the thoroughfare; but Lord Lincoln had previously consulted the parish, who accepted his plans. The precedent then established ought to have been now followed. The cost of these new streets should not be thrown upon the local burdens, in a manner for which there was no precedent in highway or street law. The Bill proposed to vest the arbitration of the issue in the Metropolitan Board; but that Body was interested in keeping the cost of maintenance off its own rates. It would, therefore, be a collusive arbitration.

  561
  If independent parishes and districts could be treated in this way now, what would be their position when they were only component parts of a central Corporation? On the grounds that the Metropolitan Board would be an interested arbitrator, and that expense would be thrown on St. George's, which had nothing whatever to do with the improvement, he moved that the Bill 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 Earl of Powis.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as the noble Lord had just alluded to a Bill which was not yet before their Lordships, he would remark that this case illustrated the extraordinary position in which the Metropolis was placed, for when its authorities could not agree among themselves as to the maintenance of an important improvement, yet one of no great magnitude, their Lordships were asked to say that it should not be maintained at all. It was absolutely necessary that some provision should be made, for no one would say that the streets should be shut up; if they were adopted and used by the public, they must be maintained in some way. No doubt, any objections might be urged against all the four modes of maintaining them. As between the two parishes, the preponderance of the facts seemed to be in favour of the case of St. Martin's. The Metropolitan Board had not undertaken anything like it anywhere else; and there was no precedent for throwing the cost of maintenance on Imperial funds. But their Lordships were not asked to determine the question; they were asked to say that it should be decided by the Metropolitan Board. By the Metropolis Local Management Acts that Body was appointed arbitrator as between two parishes or districts; but the present case did not come within the Acts; and, therefore, it would be necessary to come to Parliament. Their Lordships were not tied to any particular method of distributing the cost of the improvement by the Bill, and might refer it to a Select Committee. It would certainly not be a satisfactory method of dealing with the question to throw out the Bill on a second reading. If the Bill passed, and was referred to a Select Committee, who
  562
  could satisfactorily deal with all the questions involved, that would certainly be a better course than to leave the matter altogether unsettled.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERsaid, he hoped that the noble Earl opposite would not press his Motion, for the reasons given by his noble Friend behind him and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. The Committee would have full power to apportion the various sums to be paid by the different Bodies. There could be no doubt that the proposed changes were a great Metropolitan improvement, especially in respect of the enormous traffic from the Great Western Railway to the South West of London, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works should therefore contribute. There was no doubt that the two divisions of St. George's parish would benefit largely.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was one point which had not been touched in the speeches which had been addressed to their Lordships. This was not simply an improvement for the convenience of traffic, but a great ornament to the Metropolis. If precedent were to be followed, the cost would have to be borne by the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Crown. In the case of the Thames Embankment, no one had ever thought of making each successive parish through which it passed contribute to its construction. This was as near a case to the Thames Embankment as could be found. Now it was proposed that the Metropolitan Board of Works should arbitrate on the question. But that impartial arbitrator had on June 20 last year declined to take upon itself any portion of the cost. Yet, with this announcement staring them in the face, the Government gravely asked their Lordships to refer this matter to that Body for them to say whether they would bear the costs or not. It was ridiculous to pass an Act of Parliament of that kind. The proposed road really fell within the precedent of Constitution Hill, of which it was a continuation. If he was not mistaken, Constitution Hill was maintained out of the public Estimates, and it was out of the Estimates that this payment ought to be made. He quite understood the argument of the noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster) if the Committee would have full power to determine the whole matter. But a Select Committee would not be

  563
  empowered to decide whether the burden should be borne by the Crown, or the Estimates, or the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Government should be called upon to pursue a consistent course; and they ought not to be allowed, simply because it suited them, to refer to a mutilated and one-sided Committee a matter which required full and unlimited powers to be properly dealt with. He did not see what on earth the Standing Order referred to by the noble Lord, which said that the House of Commons would not insist on its privileges in respect of Private Bills or Provisional Orders or Certificates sent down from the House of Lords, had to do with the matter. Their Lordships ought to deal with the question in a consistent manner. The House could not insert words which would have the effect of bringing a. charge on the Estimates. As their Lordships' Committee would not be able to decide whether the money should be paid by the parishes of St. George's or St. Martin's, or the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Estimates, he should support his noble Friend behind him.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Marques's argument was one of the most singular he had over heard. Their Lordships always took care not to come into collision with the House of Commons. There was no reason why their Lordships should not deal with the matter on the ground that the House of Commons might take a narrow view of its rights and privileges. The noble Marquess objected to the Bill because they had no power of putting a Vote on the Estimates. But that objection had no weight, because, in strictness, no Vote could be proposed in the House of Commons itself except by the responsible Minister of the Crown. But of all the curious arguments he had ever heard, the noble Marques's argument about Constitution Hill was the most curious. Constitution Hill was not a public thoroughfare at all, and there was, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. The question was, who was to provide for the maintenance of this highway? There was something to be said for throwing it on the Board of Works, so that it would be paid out of a general rate, and something for making the cost chargeable to St. George's and the other parishes interested. He gathered from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Powis) that
  564
  there was a soreness felt by St. George's, because it was not consulted. He should be most anxious to consider parochial honour, and was sorry if that were so. But the question of this thoroughfare, which was an especial convenience to almost all Members of that House and to the public generally, was a broad and important one, and the method of apportioning the contributions to its maintenance could well be decided by a Select Committee. The noble Marquess stated that the Metropolitan Board had already decided this question. What they did was to decline to undertake the whole cost of maintaining this road.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the decision of the Board was in these terms: —
  "The Board is of opinion that the best course is that statutory powers should be obtained to enable the Board to determine by what parish or parishes the road should be maintained."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Board had consented to the introduction of this Bill, which proposed to apportion the cost between the Metropolitan Board and the two parishes. The only point, therefore, that remained was, that this House was not enabled to impose the expenses on the National Exchequer. But he was strongly of opinion that there could be nothing more unjust or unfair to the general taxpayer than that they should be called on to contribute to the maintenance of roads in this rich Metropolis.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)pointed out that the Bill was originally introduced in the other House; that it remained there for some time, and then was withdrawn and brought in in that House; but the question now in issue should have been determined in the other House. He objected to the Bill, on the ground that it would leave to the Board to determine whether it should pay anything, or throw the whole charge on the parishes or one of them.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he desired to explain why the Bill was withdrawn from the other House. As their Lordships were aware, there was a certain hon. Member there who blocked everything. This Bill was, unfortunately, blocked by him, and as the Government saw that there was no chance of their getting the Bill referred to a Select Committee, they felt that the only course

  565
  was to introduce it into their Lordships' House.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, he had always understood that in the case of taxing Bills this House dealt with the non-taxing clauses, and left the taxing clauses to the other House. This Bill would enable the whole of the expense of maintaining this road to be cast on parish No. 1, or parish No. 2, or on the Metropolitan Board. Could there be a more taxing clause than that?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the highest authorities of the other House had been consulted, and were of opinion that this was not a taxing clause.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the clause was distinctly a taxing clause, for though it did not impose the expense directly on any parish or body, it enabled another authority to do so. If this Bill, which contained only one clause, and that a taxing clause, was to be accepted by the House of Commons, though introduced in this House, he hoped that this decision of the authorities would apply to every case, and not merely to Government Bills.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government could not accept the noble and learned Earl's interpretation of this clause. Rates were not the same thing as taxes. This Bill imposed rates on a certain district, and not taxes of a national character. That was the ground of the distinction.
  THE EARL OE LIMERICKreminded the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack that in a previous Session he proposed an Amendment to a Bill dealing with local guarantees for tramways, and he was told that he was treading on the province of the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had no recollection of this incident.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:— Contents 70; Not-Contents 94: Majority 24.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Lucan, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Minto, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Morley, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Sydney, E,

  566

  Yarborough, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eversley, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Leigh, L.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Methuen, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Or-monde.)

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Auckland, L.

  Belper, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Bram well, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Carrington, L.

  Castletown, L,

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Cottesloe, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Emly, L.

  Teynham, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Greville, L.

  Truro, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Vernon, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rutland, D.

  Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

  Somerset, D.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Exeter, M. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Hawarden, V.

  Hood, V.

  Annesley, E.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Temple town, V.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Cadogan, E.

  Abercromby, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Camper down, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V Boyne.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Howe, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Jersey, E.

  Lathom, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Manvers, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Morton, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Powis, E. [Teller.]

  Dig by, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ellenborough, L,

  567

  Fisherwick, L. (M. Donegal.)

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Gerard, L.

  Shute, L. (V, Barrington.)

  Harlech, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Lamington, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Loveland Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Tollemache, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Moore, L. (Mr. Drogheda.)

  Trevor, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Norton, L.

  North, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
(The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.

  (No. 102.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that he brought forward this Bill because he knew it was strongly desired by the inhabitants of the county. Already legislation of the same class had been applied to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, so that whether this Bill passed or not, the House had already sanctioned the principle which it contained on three different occasions. The principle having been adopted, he should hope that if he could show that an earnest desire for the Bill was felt by the inhabitants of Cornwall the House would say there was no practical reason for refusing to one county, which constituted the Duchy of Cornwall, that which had been granted to 12 counties which constituted the Principality of Wales. He knew the Bill would be eloquently opposed by the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Bramwell). No doubt the noble and learned Lord would attack the Bill root and branch; but he hoped the House would remember that the principle had already been sanctioned on three occasions. They would be told, probably, that it was tyrannical, unjust, as between rich and poor, and exceptional legislation. No one could
  568
  be more opposed than he was to unnecessary restrictive legislation; but he did not think the word "tyrannical" could be used for legislation which was desired by the people to whom it applied; and the demand for this Bill came almost unanimously and most earnestly from those who were to be affected by it, and who knew perfectly well how it would affect them. The suggestion that it was unjust fell to the ground for the same reasons. He spoke as President of the Cornwall Sunday Closing Association; but he had not accepted that office until he knew that the feeling of the people of Cornwall was universally favourable to the Bill. He had never on any occasion done anything to stimulate the movement in the county. He had never attended any meeting. He felt that he was one who would not be affected by this Bill; and it was only when he saw that it was desired unanimously by the people of the county that he undertook to represent them in this matter. He denied that the Bill was exceptional. Sunday closing was the rule, not the exception, so far as trading was concerned; and where exceptions were made it was not for the benefit of any industry but of the public. If it was felt that the injury to the public was greater than the convenience afforded, there was good ground for restricting such an exception as this. It would be said, too, that Cornwall was distinguished by sobriety, and that was proved by the number of the convictions for drunkenness. He admitted Cornwall was distinguished by sobriety. Such a Petition as was sent up in favour of this Bill would not have come from a county which was not distinguished by sobriety. At the same time, the number of convictions for drunkenness did not entirely prove the assertion, because these were only the cases in which drunkenness was accompanied by disorderly conduct and rowdyism, and the exceptional feature of the county of Cornwall was the absence of rowdyism. The county bad its proportion of drunkards, and they drank on Saturday nights and Sundays. Many such men signed that Petition, and did so with their eyes open, and because they felt it would be desirable to have a relief from temptation on Sundays. Some people, he knew, had no patience with any sentiment of that kind; but he must deal with men

  569
  as they were. Their Lordships would regard as almost incredible a story he heard the other day from Liverpool. A man came from sea with money in his pocket, and wishing to send it on to his wife. He knew it would be all right if he could get safely to the Sailors' Home; but he knew he could not trust himself, 80 he employed a bigger man than himself, and promised him 5s. on condition that he would convey him safely, and by force, if necessary, to the Sailors' Home. There was some free fighting, but the man succeeded. He was told this by an eye-witness, who assured him it was not an unusual occurrence, and that there were men at Liverpool who were so employed. The population of Cornwall numbered, including infants, 330,685, and the 60 per cent above 16 would be 198,000. Out of that number 120,000 signed the Petition in favour of this Bill. He knew that attempts had been made to disprove some of those signatures; but after they had passed the ordeal of the House of Commons they could, only be reduced to 119,485. All the Mayors of the boroughs in Cornwall supported the measure, with one exception. Of the 13 Members of Parliament, 11 supported it, and all the county Members had their names on the Bill when it was before the Lower House. The year before last 181 meetings were held in favour of the Bill, at all of which resolutions were carried in its favour, and in almost all cases unanimously. Last year, after the failure of the Bill in this House, he was unwilling that further agitation should go on in the county. But it had been said that this was a movement which came only from one party and one school of religious thought — namely, the Nonconformists. He thought it was the best way to try and ascertain the opinion of the clergy in the diocese. He wrote to 250 parishes, and received 188 replies, of which 162 were distinctly favourable; 16 were doubtful, either because the writers could not ascertain, or thought the feeling was divided; and 10 were adverse. He thought that was fair proof that the feeling in the county continued. On application to the Nonconformists, out of 153 who were written to 118 replied, and were all in favour of the Bill. There was one point which had been strongly urged—namely, the allowance of one hour on Sunday for the
  570
  purchase of beer to be consumed at home. That might be fairly discussed in Committee; but he could not himself support it, because he knew it was contrary to the wishes of those who wished for the Bill. They thought it would do a great deal of injury. Again, he would say that since this Bill was last before the House there had been evidence of the results of Sunday closing in Wales. In Cardiff and Swansea the Act had been evaded in various ways, but through the country generally it had worked well and done good; and the complaints from the large towns were such as in Scotland, under the Forbes Mackenzie Act, were speedily obviated. The only other word he wished to say related to the local character of the Act. Why was it the Licensed Victuallers, in the papers they had sent round to Members of the House, objected to the piecemeal character of this legislation, and demanded that there should be a uniform policy for the whole country? He thought it was because that would put off the whole question to the Greek Kalends. It was said the Lords Committee declined to recommend Sunday closing. But that referred only to a general Sunday Closing Bill for the whole country, which would be surrounded with enormous difficulties, especially in connection with London and other large towns. It was said, also, that the Committee declared against local areas; but that decision of the Committee referred to total prohibition by local option in parochial areas. The Committee advised, on the other hand, that localities should be assisted and allowed to make experiments for themselves in dealing with this complicated and delicate subject. That was what he asked their Lordships to allow in the case of Cornwall. If the experiment should fail, it was not a serious matter, considering the character of the county; while if it succeeded it might be a valuable guide for future legislation. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Mount Edqcumbe.)
  LORD BRAMWELLsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He should not attempt to be eloquent, for eloquence was a quality which he did not possess,

  571
  and without which he had managed to get on hitherto. He should simply make a plain statement, appealing—the noble Earl opposite must forgive him for saying so—to their Lordships' common sense on the matter. What was the justification for the Bill? It proposed to put an end during one day to a lawful trade, which was to continue lawful in the county except upon the one day on which it was to be stopped, and which was to continue lawful throughout the rest of the United Kingdom except where it had been particularly stopped. What justification was there for that? The trade might not be one for which their Lordships had much love, nor one which attracted their custom; nevertheless, it was a trade of very great importance to those who carried it on, and those who dealt with them. The House ought to bear in mind that this was not merely a proposal to put an end to the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday in Cornwall, but to put an end to the sale of all the commodities sold by those who retailed beer and spirits. Under this Bill a man who sold intoxicating liquor would not be at liberty on (Sunday to sell any other articles—such as bread, cheese, and ginger-beer. Of course, it would be impossible to have the public-houses open for one part of the trade alone; but he placed this consideration before their Lordships, in order that they might see what it was the noble Earl was asking them to assent to. But what was the justification of the Bill? The Bill was not necessary as a police regulation, because Cornwall was exceptionally sober on Sundays—that was to say, out of doors. Whether it was sober indoors was another matter, upon which he would have something to say presently; but the number of convictions for intoxication on Sunday was almost ludicrously small, and was greatly to the credit of Cornwall. There was one conviction in every fortnight— about 28 in the year—and the number of persons convicted was about one out of 12,000. Therefore, on the ground of decency and order, there was not the least necessity for the proposed measure. Who, then, asked for it? Was it those who did not drink themselves, and who wished to make the rest of mankind as good as they were? If so, he thought it a great piece of impertinence that a man should come forward and say,
  572
  "You are not as good as I am; I am above all temptation. I do not want to drink, and, therefore, I desire that you shall not drink at all, for fear you should fall into temptation." Was the Bill, on the other hand, to be passed for the sake of those who drank too much? If so, here was a man who said, "I cannot resist temptation; therefore, shut up the public-houses on a Sunday. Not only prohibit my going into them, but also prevent all the sober people in Cornwall from doing so." Surely that was an unreasonable proposal. Supposing an Inspector was to enter their Lordships' houses every Saturday night as the clock struck 12, and to demand the key of the cellar, not because he thought their Lordships were going to drink more than was good for them on Sunday, but because there was one man in 10,000 in the district who might take too much —that would be intolerable, would it not? The present Bill was promoted either by the sober, who wished to make other people as good and sober as themselves, and to put an end to what might be called reasonable drinking—such as was necessary for the health and enjoyment of those who were accustomed to it— or it might be promoted by the drunkards, who, having no restraint over themselves, wished the law to step in and help their weakness. In other words, they wished others to be restrained because they could not restrain themselves. It was said that Cornwall petitioned for the Bill. One could very well understand how Petitions were got up. A man went to another, and said, "Will you sign this Petition?" It was always pleasanter to say "Yes," than "No," and so the person asked signed the Petition, thinking he would never hear about the matter again. If these Petitions were of the value attached to them, what on earth was the need for this Bill? Cornwall would shut up the public-houses of itself. Why, instead of petitioning, did not the people of Cornwall refrain from going to the public-houses, and then they would very soon shut up. But what was the meaning of limiting this Bill, if it were, as was said, a good Bill, to Cornwall? Certainly Cornwall was a very isolated district, and on that account perhaps the easier dealt with. On two sides it was surrounded by the sea; but on a large part of the third there was no natural division

  573
  between it and Devonshire. Depend upon it, if people wanted drink on the Sunday they would get it, very likely by violating the law, or else by making provision for it on the previous Saturday. Whenever there was an article which one man wanted to sell, and another man to buy, they might be sure that business would be done between those two men. It was inevitable, then, that, despite all interference and restrictions, drinking would take place upon Sunday: That being so, their object should be to take care that it should be done in as decent a manner as possible. That would be better provided for by allowing the drinking to take place in the public-house under the supervision of the licensed victualler, who was responsible for the good order of his establishment, rather than in the house of the drinker, where there was not anything calculated to impose restraint upon him. There would be less drunkenness and less sottishness than if done quietly in the house of the drinker. Short time as he had been a Member of their Lordships' House, he had had to say this several times — that they were creating a new offence—an offence with which men's conscience did not go. When they made a law against stabbing, or stealing, people knew that it was wrong to stab or steal, and they had a disposition to obey the law. But when they made a law which said that a decent, well-conducted man should not do what he had been doing all his life, they made a law which would be disobeyed, and they created one of those offences with which the public conscience did not go. They would have the law broken— a thing bad in itself; because as soon as a man began to break one law he was on the high road to breaking another. They would have the publican desirous to sell, another man desirous to buy, and a regular force of spies, informers, and perjurers springing up in consequence. Therefore, let them not put this temptation in the way of the people. Why was this restriction to apply to Sunday? He desired Sunday always to be decently and decorously observed. But why restrain a man from doing on Sunday that which was not wrong in itself? If wrong in itself, why prohibit it on that particular day only? Why prohibit it in Cornwall? People from other places occasionally went there. Why should they be placed under those unreasonable
  574
  restrictions. He had already referred to the proximity of Cornwall to Devonshire, and had no doubt if this Bill should pass that Devonshire folks would have a considerable number of visits from their Cornish neighbours. It was for those who proposed to pass this Bill to show why a trade which was lawful in itself, and which would continue lawful the other six days of the week, ought to be stopped. He begged to move that the Bill 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.)
  LORD ABERDARE, in supporting the Motion for the second reading, said, that there was no question which affected the morality of the people of this country more than this drink question. It was universally admitted that drunkenness was the great national sin and the source of more crime than any other cause. Over and over again inquiries had been made into the subject, the last by a Committee of their Lordships' House; and it might be taken as the unanimous opinion of that Committee that any large measure dealing with the whole subject of drink was, in the present state of public opinion, impossible. In that Report there was an expression of regret that Liverpool was not allowed to try its free-trade system, and Birmingham the Gottenburgh system. They reported in favour of some further restrictions; and while strongly opposed to local option, the general suggestion of the Committee was that important localities, such as Birmingham, should be allowed to grapple with the evil. Now there existed in Cornwall a very strong desire to take one step for the suppression of drunkenness. It was quite true that the convictions for drunkenness in Cornwall were not numerous; but convictions were not the measure of the actual amount of drinking, but of the actual amount of drinking with disorderly conduct. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Bramwell) objected to any interference with a lawful trade. That argument might be carried too far. Was not the trade of the draper lawful? And yet they did not allow the draper to carry on his trade on Sunday. Why? Because it would violate the public con-

  575
  science. But if drinking on Sunday violated the conscience of the people of Cornwall, why not allow a restriction to be placed upon it? He could very well understand why the people of Cornwall, as well as the Welsh, Scotch, and Irish people, should have expressed a strong opinion on this subject. Public opinion had been shown to be in favour of such restrictions; and he could see no reason why, having granted those restrictions in England, Scotland, and Wales, this Bill should not be passed. He was compelled to admit, however, that the experiment tried in Wales was not so successful as he could have wished it to be. In those parts of Wales which were of the same character as Cornwall success had been complete; but when they came to the large towns there was no doubt that there had been a failure to some extent, and especially was that the case in Cardiff and Swansea. There was great difficulty in determining who was a bond fide traveller; and every Sunday evening drunken sailors, coming back to Swansea after spending the day at the Mumbles, chanted a refrain of a song, "We are all bona fides." The formation of sham clubs and illicit drinking had largely contributed to that failure. This was a matter in regard to which it seemed to him that the Cornish people had a right to be heard, and he hoped their Lordships would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEremarked that the argument of the noble and learned Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill would have been practical some years ago before this system of legislation had been entered upon. It was now impossible to argue simply on general and broad grounds, because the very kind of legislation now asked for had been granted to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Rightly or wrongly, this was a matter which was exercising the minds of a very large number of people, and if they wanted an enthusiastic unanimous meeting, they had only to advertise one for the promotion of Sunday closing. It was stated by the noble Earl who moved the second reading of the Bill that this was a question which affected the poorer classes; and there could be no doubt that the opinion of an enormous majority of the poorer people of the country was in favour of the action which their Lordships were asked to
  576
  take. It was, however, in his opinion, very unfortunate that they should have this kind of piecemeal legislation. If they were to have it, Cornwall was, perhaps, the best county in which to try the experiment; it stood by itself, and was much cut off from the rest of England. There were counties very differently situated—for example, Lancashire. There was, perhaps, as much beer and spirits consumed in Lancashire in a week as there was in Cornwall in a century. Now, Lancashire projected into his diocese, between Cumberland and Westmoreland, in such a way that if Lancashire passed a Sunday Closing Bill, and Lancashire people went into the other two counties to drink, the position would be intolerable; it would be like throwing weeds into your neighbour's garden. For such reasons he objected to county legislation. But what was the alternative? Were they to reject the Bill altogether on the grounds on which they were asked to reject it? He could not make up his mind to that alternative; he would not assist to overthrow the Bill. He was quite certain it would grieve the hearts of many most earnest persons, who were working for a great object, if it were rejected; and, therefore, with a simple but strong protest against county legislation, he should support the second reading of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he naturally took a great interest in the subject, and he had a personal interest in Cornwall. The arguments advanced that night had been characterized by practical strength on one side and by theoretical strength on the other; but the practical arguments were overwhelming, while the theoretical arguments, notwithstanding the sound eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, were practically broken down on every side. The argument against restricting the trade on one day of the week was only a sound in the air. It rested with the advocates of intemperance to show that one trade should be exempted from restrictions which applied to all others. The question was not one of Imperial policy at all; it was one of police regulation, and nothing more. Everywhere they had Licensing Boards; all that was asked was that certain instructions should be given to those in Cornwall. At present they could issue licences for six days a-week, and what was asked was

  577
  that in this district they should issue them only for six days a week. Enough stress had not been laid upon the reality of the unanimity which prevailed among the Cornish people upon this subject. That unanimity was not represented by any forged Petitions he could assure their Lordships. He was in the county when the subject was being discussed, and he saw a good deal of the people who took part in the discussion. He was at the time of opinion that it might be well to open public-houses in the middle of the day, and again in the evening, for the supply of family beer. At a crowded town meeting at which he was present a gentleman supported this view in an excellent and argumentative speech; but only four hands were held up in favour of it, and the rest of the meeting unanimously supported the view that the public-houses should be entirely closed. This was only one instance out of many that might be adduced. No doubt county legislation was imperfect legislation; but the advocates of more general legislation were bound to accept what they could get when such acceptance was called for by the real demand of the whole county concerned. It was the wish of the people of a certain group of licensing districts that their licences should be issued in a particular way, and he thought that the request ought to be granted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdesired to say a few words upon this question, both on account of the general interest he took in it, and the connection which he had with the county of Cornwall. At the outset he might say that he differed with some remarks which had been made as to what was thought just objection to the Bill. Whilst he supported this measure, he admitted that the objections which had been urged by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Carlisle) might be urged against all legislation of this kind —namely, that it was piecemeal. He certainly was not more enamoured, as a rule, of that kind of legislation than was the right rev. Prelate; but he thought that this was a case for such legislation; for all those who had looked carefully into the subject were aware that, unless they proceeded with piecemeal legislation in dealing with the closing of public-houses on Sunday, practically they could not proceed at all. He did not believe that anyone who had
  578
  studied the subject would be prepared to suggest that all the public-houses should be closed in London. This was a very great exception to make, and showed how necessary it was to deal with the question, by piecemeal legislation unless they wished to stop all legislation on the subject. It was to him a sufficient excuse for this proceeding. The first question which naturally raised itself was whether there was such a strong feeling in the county of Cornwall in favour of this legislation as that represented by the most rev. Primate. Of this there could be no doubt, and it should have no inconsiderable weight in their dealing with this matter. He had satisfied himself that the feeling was not expressed merely by Petitions, which could be got up with the greatest ease, but by a strong and genuine feeling throughout the county. It was shared in by all classes, and everyone practically was desirous of legislation of this kind. He could see no reason why the House should reject the Bill. As the House was aware, an extraordinarily strong feeling existed throughout the country on this temperance question. Indeed, a stronger feeling prevailed with regard to it amongst the working classes than existed upon any other subject. He did not share many of the opinions held by the extreme advocates of temperance; but he asked their Lordships not to lose sight of the fact that every day the feeling was growing, and that they could not afford to neglect it, or to treat it with disdain. He quite agreed that they could not go the full length many conscientious men would have them go; but when they had a measure with such a strong desire in its favour they should give heed to the wishes of the population. There was this strong argument in favour of the proposal. The Sunday closing of public-houses had already been given to some parts of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. [Cries of "Divide!"] He could assure noble Lords that this was a subject worthy of discussion. It was all very well to cry "Divide!" but the matter was not one to be treated lightly because the dinner hour had arrived. On the grounds that there was precedent, that the measure was desired by the county affected, and that there was a general desire in the country for such legislation, he hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 39; Not-Contents 57: Majority 18.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Belper, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E Breadalbane.)

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  St. Albans, D.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E Clanwilliam.)

  Westminster, D.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Emly, L.

  Derby, E.

  Kenmare, L. (.E. Kenmare.)

  Feversham, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L.

  Morley, E.

  Norton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E. [Teller.]

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Robartes, L. [Teller.]

  Saint Germans, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Thurlow, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Tollemache, L.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Truro, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Vernon, E.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Somerset, D.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Dinevor, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Annesley, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Ashburnham, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Kintore, L.(E. Kintore.)

  Bradford, E.

  Leigh, L, [Teller.]

  Brooke and Warwick, E.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Coventry, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Lovelace, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Milltown, E.

  North, L.

  Minto, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Templetown, V.

  Teynham, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Tredegar, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Bramwell, L. [Teller.]

  Wemyss, L. (E Wemyss.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The lord Chancellor.)
GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that the real question raised was whether the Office of Lord Privy Seal was to be abolished or not. It was an important question, which had been brought forward in his recollection four or five times in the other House. The Bill did not directly propose to abolish the Office; but it seemed to be a surreptitious way of effecting that purpose, as it would leave nothing for the Lord Privy Seal to do. The Bill, in fact, did not tell a true story.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the Bill proposed simply to take away from the officer called the Lord Privy Seal the few nominal duties which he had now to discharge. That officer did not exercise any efficient control over the Instruments which had to pass the Great Seal, for which, in some instances, the Lord Chancellor, in others the Home Secretary or other Secretary of State, or the Treasury were responsible. This Act contemplated that the persons who had the real responsibility should obtain the Royal Warrant, and that the Royal Warrant should then pass directly through the Office of the Lord Chancellor. The formal duties now discharged by the Lord Privy Seal only served to add to the expense in the case of those Instruments. The Bill did not propose to abolish the Office; but no salary would henceforth be attached to it. In fact, no salary had for the last two or three years been asked for it. He did not anticipate that the Office would long survive.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the matter was not of such trivial importance as the noble and learned Earl seemed to attach to it. It was a matter which affected the most important body of men in the country—namely, the Cabinet, of which the Lord Privy Seal was, from time immemorial, a Member. It ought carefully to be considered whether the Bill was sweeping away a mere administrative cobweb, or making an important change.
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made: the Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.

  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision for the foundation of a Dean and Chapter for the Bishopric of Newcastle; and for the transfer to the Cathedral Church of Newcastle of one of the canonries in the Cathedral Church of Durham; and for the transfer of certain ecclesiastical patronage to the Bishopric and Chapter of Newcastle; and for other purposes connected therewith— was presented by The Lord Bishop of DURHAM; read 1a. (No. 130.)
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.