Sitting of 4 June 1874

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Durham City, v. John Henderson, esquire, and Thomas Charles Thompson, esquire, void Election; for Haverfordwest, v. Lord Kensington, void Election.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Valuation (Ireland) Act Amendment * [134].
Ordered—First Reading—Canadian Stock (Stamp Duty on Transfers) * [133].
Second Reading—Alkali Act (1863) Amendment * [99]; Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) (No. 2) * [114]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation * [129]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order * [131].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Chain Cables and Anchors * [85].
Committee—Intoxicating Liquors [83]—[R.P.]
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [112]; Building Societies (re-comm.) * [110–132].
Considered as amended—Harbour of Colombo (Loan) * [60]; Revenue Officers Disabilities * [15].

CUSTOMS—MEMORIAL OF OUT-DOOR OFFICERS—QUESTION.
MR. BATESasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would state to the House what decision, if any, has been come to regarding the Memorial of the Customs Outdoor Officers at the Out-ports; and, if no decision has yet been come to, when the Memorialists may expect one?
MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that the Memorial had only recently reached the Treasury from the Customs officials, and there had not yet been sufficient time to consider the very important questions which it involved.

ARMY—LORD AYLESFORD AND THE WARWICKSHIRE YEOMANRY CAVALRY.—QUESTION.
MR. DILLWYNasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a Statement which appeared in the evening newspapers of the 21st of May, to the effect that Lord Aylesford, with a troop of Yeomanry Cavalry, demanded admission at the Leamington Railway station as a guard of honour upon the occasion of Her Majesty's passing through that station on the 20th of May, and that on being refused admission by the Railway officials he forcibly obtained it; and, whether Lord Aylesford had received orders or authority from his superior officer to form a guard of honour on that occasion?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: In re-ply, Sir, to the Question of my hon. Friend, I think I had better state the circumstances as they have been ascertained by inquiry. I told him on a former occasion that inquiries were in course of being made, and I have now received reports from different sources, which all, practically, give the same account of the transaction. It appears that the Warwickshire Yeomanry Cavalry were at Warwick, under the command of Lord Warwick. It is usual every evening to tell off a troop for picket duty, and on the evening in question, the 20th of May, Lord Aylesford's troop was told off for picket duty. It was at that time known that Her Majesty would stay for a few minutes at the Leamington station on her way to the North, and Lord Aylesford's troop were very eager to pay Her Majesty a mark of respect as a guard of honour, and Lord Aylesford asked Lord Warwick if he might be permitted to go over to Leamington to see if his troop would be permitted to act as a guard of honour to salute Her Majesty. He arrived at Leamington, and while his troop remained in the road outside the station, Lord Aylesford rode up to a temporary barrier, and asked for admission for himself and his men. There were there some railway officials—platelayers—who told him he could not have admission. He thereupon asked to see the station-master. In the meantime, as he came up to the barrier, one of the men took hold of his horse, and attempted to put him back. Lord

963
Aylesford then dismounted, and attempted to go under the harrier, that he might speak to the station-master, whom he had asked for. He was seized by the men, and I may say, on the authority of all the reports, that he used no more violence than was necessary in order to release himself from them. One of his troop dismounted, and Lord Aylesford immediately reprimanded him, and told him to re-mount. The troop remained perfectly quiet, and when the train came up, Lord Aylesford asked to speak to the Equerry in Waiting. General Ponsonby came up, and spoke to him through the railing. He said Her Majesty did not wish to hurt his feelings at all, but She desired that her short stay in the station should be quite private, and that She did not wish to encourage volunteers to appear at all in the station. Lord Aylesford immediately returned to his troop, and went back to Warwick. So that I may say, in the first place, that Lord Aylesford did not obtain admission to the station by violence; and, in the second place, that he had the permission of his commanding officer to go to Leamington as a guard of honour.

INDIA—RELIGIOUS RIOTS AT BOMBAY.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any official Correspondence which has taken place between the Marquess of Salisbury and the Parsee Community at Bombay on the subject of the religious riots which took place in that city in February last; and whether it is the intention of Government to make any investigation of the causes which led to these disturbances, the means used for their suppression, and the general conduct of the local authorities during their continuance?
  MR. DUNBARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House (in addition to the Papers mentioned in the question of the honourable Member for Kilmarnock Burghs) Copies of any Despatches which have been received at the India Office in reference to the recent riots at Bombay, and also Copies of the Reports of the
  964
  Commissioner of Police at Bombay relating thereto?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, that the Secretary of State had received a Memorial on the subject of the riots in question, but he had not yet replied to it, inasmuch as the Papers only arrived a few days ago. The matter was still under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and as soon as the Papers were ready, they would be laid upon the Table.

ARMY—THE MILITIA AND THE LINE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Military authorities, during the present drill season, to call for volunteers from each Militia regiment, at the close of its training, for the linked corps of the Line?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that the special condition of the linked Corps service at the present moment would not render it necessary to make any special call for volunteers from the Militia. Volunteers would, however, be accepted, and, as a rule would, as far as possible, be posted in the brigade of the sub-district to which they belonged.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BASSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been drawn to the case of Daniel Norley, a labourer in the parish of Burnham in Kent, who at the end of last year was summoned to the County Court at the suit of a tallyman, for a debt of 12 s. 6d.; and on the hearing of the judgment summons Norley's wife appeared and told the court her husband was confined to his house by severe illness, and was then and had been for some time supported by the parish and attended by the parish doctor; that, nevertheless, an order was made for payment of the debt in two instalments; in default of payment whereof, Norley was in February last taken from his sick bed to Maidstone Gaol; that he only remained there two days, was sent home, and died a few days after; and, how far this statement is consistent with the declaration "that no debtor is imprisoned unless he was then, or had been

  965
  since the issue of the summons, able to pay the debt sued for?"
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had, upon a former occasion, stated most of the details of the case. He had subsequently inquired into the question of the ability of the man to pay the debt, and he found that the order was first made on the 25th October, 1871, for 12 s. 6d., and the judgment summons was not made out until the 2nd April, 1873, when no one appeared on his behalf. It had been proved to the satisfaction of the County Court Judge that his wife had admitted, in his presence, that he earned 18 s., and sometimes a guinea a-week.

THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS (IRELAND)—SUPPLEMENTAL CHARTER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNBARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any application has been made by or on behalf of the President and Fellows of the King's and Queen's College of Physicians in Ireland for a Supplemental Charter altering the mode of electing Fellows and instituting a new order to be styled Members of the College; and, whether, before the granting of any such Supplemental Charter, an opportunity will be given to this House of expressing an opinion on the proposed alterations?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the application for a Supplemental Charter had not been reported on by the Law Officers of the Crown; and, until that was done, he could not answer the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

  POSTPONEMENT OF NOTICE.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he wished to appeal to the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Stamford (Sir John Hay) to postpone a Motion of which he had given Notice in reference to the Newfoundland Fisheries. He did so on these grounds—the subject had been and then was under consideration, and negotiations were going forward both with the Colony of Newfoundland and the French Government on the subject. What he wished was that the right hon. and gallant Baronet would postpone his Motion until Her Majesty's Government
  966
  were prepared to make a statement on the subject.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had no difficulty in acceding to the request of his hon. Friend, inasmuch as his sole object was to assist in settling a very difficult question.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

  [BILL 83.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, said, it became his duty, in accordance with a promise he made to the House some little time ago, to make a statement to them as to the views of the Government upon this matter. In the first place, he was sure the House would pardon him for a few moments whilst he stated what he really believed to be the fact, that what he said when he introduced this Bill, and also on the second reading, had been very much misunderstood and misrepresented throughout the country. He was quite aware that all things were considered perfectly fair in love and war, and he supposed also the same thing applied to politics, and therefore he had no reason to complain, but should feel as happy as he could under the circumstances. It had been stated very freely—not merely by the Members of that House but throughout the country—that he had found grievous fault with the Act of 1872 regarding this question, and also that the Act had not worked satisfactorily. What he really did state was, that the late Government in bringing forward their first Bill, though anxious to approach the question with the greatest care and consideration, showed that at that time they certainly did not understand the nature of the question with which they had to deal. He believed that throughout the length and breadth of the country that measure was universally condemned, and so was the action of the late Government upon it. He had always stated, and he stated it again, that the late Government, when they approached the second Bill in 1872—committed a mistake. He did not believe they thoroughly understood the object which every one interested in the question had in view—namely, the best

  967
  means of putting an end to the drunkenness which existed in this country. That was not to be effected by the restrictive clauses of that measure, which inflicted considerable hardship upon a great number of persons who were following a lawful trade, and which kept back from going into that trade many respectable persons who would have embarked their capital in it, thus tending to turn the business into less respectable channels. What he had always said was that he believed the Act of 1872 did effect, in a great portion of its clauses, a very considerable amount of good. He believed, for instance, that the change made with regard to the mode in which licences were granted was of great advantage. It was a great evil that licences should be granted, as they were, by the magistrates in quarter sessions. A great number of gentlemen, though starting with the best intentions, often came to look upon the granting of these licences not so much in the light of a judicial act as of one in which they might be rather prone to follow their own inclination. For that reason the old licensing system was distrusted throughout the country, and it was a great improvement to cast this duty upon licensing committees, where the justices all felt more individual responsibility, and treated the applications in a more judicial light than they were ever treated before. He also approved of those clauses of the Act of 1872, which related to the keeping of public order by increasing the penalties for drunkenness. Neither was he insensible to the benefits derived from those clauses which had shortened the hours for keeping public-houses open. Hon. Members would remember that formerly public-houses were practically open all night long, and it was not till the Early Closing Act came into operation that this subject was practically dealt with by this House. The Act of 1872, following up previous restrictions, defined the hours at present acted upon. The result of that enactment had no doubt been that the streets were very much quieter during the night, and greater order had been maintained than formerly; and so far as that, as a general principle was concerned, he thought no fault could be found with the working of the Act. But that law, quite irrespective of the particular clauses to which he had referred,
  968
  and as to the restrictions which were placed on this peculiar business, was treated in such a way as to drive respectable persons out of the trade, and unfortunately to bring into it those who were least able to conduct it according to the wishes and desires of that House. The only point on which he differed, so far as the closing hours of that Act were concerned was this—whether, when they were reducing the hours during which the public-houses should be kept open, they might not ran into the danger of going to too great an extreme and give rise to other evils which they might find it very difficult to check. They must consider whether if they tied up this trade too tightly all at once they would not be endeavouring to do that which was practically impossible—and that was to insist by Act of Parliament on the sobriety of the people. He had also been misunderstood on another point. He had been told that the clauses of the Bill which he had had the honour to propose regarding the hours of opening and closing of public-houses, were presented to this House in the interests of the publicans and not of the public; but that part of his speech which alluded to this particular subject had, he believed, been studiously forgotten by those who had spoken upon it up and down the country. What he did say when he introduced the Bill, and what he repeated now was, that he believed it to be absolutely necessary to take care in dealing with any trade—whether this or any other—that they did not carry exceptional legislation too far, so as to drive the best persons out of it. He had also stated that when they came to the question of hours, that was not a matter for the publican but for the public; and it was for this House to judge, in the interest of the public, what were the hours daring which public-houses should be kept open. He told the House that they were dealing with this peculiar trade as a regulated monopoly; and they were bound to see that the hours at which public-houses were closed were such as were not merely for the interests of the trade, or of persons who had any particular hobby or fancy with regard to shutting them up altogether, but that they were such as would practically meet the wants of the public, and at the same time conduce to public order in this matter. When he suggested the hours

  969
  of closing which were named in the Bill, he was particularly anxious the House should see and clearly understand that the hours were not such as the Government bound themselves to follow. He had been very roundly abused for making that statement, and for giving, as it was said, increased time for drinking. The abuse he did not object to; but one of the public Press in this country stated that he had not sufficiently or satisfactorily explained the views of the Government. He had borne that rebuke with great equanimity. It should be borne in [mind that he had stated he would not hurry on the second reading of the Bill, as he wished the House to have ample opportunity of fixing the hours of closing for themselves. He therefore thought that he had some right to complain of those persons outside the House who had very diligently gone up and down the country stating that the Government had pledged themselves to bring in a particular Bill lengthening the hours in the interests of drunkenness. When the Government had first approached the question, one of the most important questions they had to consider was what were the hours which they ought to suggest to the House. They had done so; but they had frankly acknowledged that it was a point on which the opinion of the House itself should be taken. It had been said that the Bill proposed to afford an extra half hour for drinking in the metropolis. No statement could be more inaccurate. Persons who made it were not in the least aware of what were the actual conditions of the metropolis when the Bill was introduced as well as at present; and what were the actual conditions of the closing hour? No doubt, by the Act of 1872 the hour of closing in the metropolis was fixed at 12 o'clock; but it was felt that to compulsorily close all public-houses throughout the metropolis at that hour would be too stringent a measure, and, therefore, a clause was inserted in the Act under which the Commissioner of Police was empowered to grant occasional licences in order to suit the convenience of those who frequented the various theatres. Under those occasional licences certain houses were authorized to keep open nominally until 12.15. But that was not all. The real exemption entitled persons who happened to be in the house to remain till
  970
  1 o'clock in the morning, or rather they were allowed to remain in the house till that time, consuming the liquor they had purchased before 12.15. The public were allowed to enter the exempted houses up to 12.15, and when once there they were allowed to remain as long as they liked up to 1 o'clock. A Question had been put to him the other night by an hon. Member (Sir John Kennaway) as to the number of exemptions granted to houses within and without the radius of one mile from Charing Cross, and having ascertained the exact figures, he was able to state that the number of exemptions granted to houses outside that radius was 81, and the number inside that radius was 48—making a total of 129 for the whole of the metropolis. Therefore it was idle to contend that under the Act of 1872 the actual hour of closing was 12 o'clock. Moreover, it was to be further borne in mind that the persons who frequented those houses and remained there until 1 o'clock were not altogether, or, indeed, in anything like the majority of cases, frequenters of theatres, but persons who went there solely to get refreshment, and for the purpose of drinking. All persons out for business or for pleasure took advantage of those houses which were allowed to remain open for an exclusive purpose. They used them until 1 o'clock in the morning, and then they were turned out into the streets. But there was another condition attaching to the case of London, which he thought the House and the country generally were against. When the Act of 1872 was brought in, it was believed that it enacted that no liquor should be consumed in the house after the time the house was closed. That had even been his own impression; but after the Act was passed, and the opinion of the magistrates was taken on the point, it was held by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench that a reasonable time should be given after the house; closed for the consumption of the liquor that was bought before 12 o'clock. One magistrate, indeed, had laid it down that a reasonable time for the consumption would be 20 or 30 minutes after the party entered, which would bring the hour up to 10 minutes to 1 o'clock. It had been the practice of the magistrates to allow some 15 or 20 minutes for the consumption of the liquor after the time of actual purchase. Well, he had to

  971
  take that important point into consideration, for the practice had been very generally followed. It was perfectly idle to say, keeping this fact in view, that the hour for closing in London under the Act of 1872 was 12 o'clock. Another point persons who discussed this question seemed altogether to forget, and it should not in this discussion be overlooked. Seeing the evils which had arisen from the decisions of magistrates who refused to impose penalties on publicans who allowed persons to remain on their premises a certain time, whether 10, 15, or 20 minutes, to consume the liquor they had purchased before the hour named in the Act after which liquor should not be sold, he had given instructions to have words inserted in the Bill to prevent any such decisions being arrived at after the Act came into force, and accordingly it was stated in the Bill that when liquor was purchased either before or after the closing hour, and a person was found consuming it on the premises after the closing hour, the person so found in the house should be considered as being guilty of a breach of the Act, and the publican who allowed him to remain there should be also liable to a penalty. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: What clause makes that provision?] The 8th clause. It was there stated that—
  "Any person who, during the time at which premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors are directed to be closed by or in pursuance of this Act, sells or exposes for sale in such premises any intoxicating liquor, or opens or keeps open such premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors, or allows any intoxicating liquors, although purchased before the hours of closing to be consumed in such premises, shall, for the first offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds, and for any subsequent offence, to a penalty not exceeding' twenty pounds."
  The very question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by the right hon. Gentleman too, what clause met that point?—was the point hon. Members seemed to forget, and gave him the right to state, as he had already stated, that the measure was misunderstood. There could be no stronger proof of that fact than the question asked by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the front Opposition bench, who took exception to his statement when introducing the Bill, and who had given Notice of an Amendment on going into Committee. So far as London was concerned, the effect of this
  972
  Bill in general would be to increase the hours at which houses were practically allowed to remain open by the decision of the magistrates not half-an-hour, but 10 minutes. Practically, therefore, they would be left as they were, and when they put against that the absolute closing of the exempted, they would find that the hours were placed on a far better and more intelligible understanding. They were bound to satisfy the country that this legislation was not for a class. The question had been asked of the House, "Whether, if they were going to close public-houses, they were not going to close their own clubs also?" ["Oh."] Well, he knew that the distinction between the two was a very broad one; but they should remember that they were dealing with people who did not understand distinctions, and among them were men who were turned out of public-houses at 12 o'clock, and who, if they walked down Pall Mall, found the club-houses open, and complained that in the legislation of the House on the subject certain rules were laid down for the rich and certain other rules for the poor. The practical result of closing public-houses early in London, as many apprehended would be the case, and as, indeed, he had stated on introducing the Bill, was likely to be the case, was that those people would establish clubs for themselves. [Opposition cheers.] He was glad to hear that cheer. He thought the object of all this legislation was not simply to regulate public-houses, but to put down drunkenness and drinking. But they might depend upon it that if they once got the classes who frequented public-houses into the habit of buying their own spirits, of coming together and meeting at their own clubs, they would find it a much more difficult matter to put down drunkenness and drinking in such places than when they had control over them. The result of all the information he had been able to acquire—and in this he was happy to be confirmed by what he understood was the deliberate intention of the Bill of the late Government—was this, that the same difficulty was felt by them as by him, and that the same arguments as weighed with the late Government weighed with him. The conclusion to which he had been led under all the circumstances, and which, in fact, he had formed before, was that they could

  973
  not close the public-houses in London before 12.30. When he first considered the question, he was met at the beginning with a great difficulty—that of determining where London should begin and where it should cease; and there did seem some difficulty in saying that the definition given in the Bill was the right one. He was free to confess, however, that the more he had looked into the question, the more he had felt himself justified in coming to the conclusion to strike out the district outside that of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Although, no doubt, there were localities outside that district as populous as those within it, they had one by one disappeared as fast as he came to study their situation and circumstances, and before the question was put to him first before Whitsuntide, to what places longer hours should be conceded, they had reduced themselves to one. He was free to confess that upon the most careful consideration he had since been able to give the subject, he had been led to the conclusion that there was not the smallest necessity for extending the boundary of the district of the Metropolitan Board of Works. [An hon. MEMBER: West Ham?] Practically it became a question in such localities, not of 10 or 15 minutes, but of an hour and a half, and that was a large question. He had determined, therefore, to throw out all outside that boundary. He bad looked every morning at the Paper, expecting to find Notice of some Motion that would help to define what London was, irrespective of the district of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but he had not found one; and his only conclusion on the subject was this—that though so many people had said that the centre of London wanted more than the district outside; yet when they came to ask those persons what the centre of London was they found that they had the greatest difficulty in saying. And on the part of all those who urged those views there was not one suggestion as to what London should be defined to be, otherwise than as the definition stood in the Act itself. He should be glad to give his attention to any other definition that might be proposed, and as one was very much wanted he should be glad to hear one laid down that would make the distinction. That being the case for London, he would now come to the case for
  974
  the country. When he laid the Bill before the House he stated frankly his opinion that there was a distinction between the cases of London and of the country. In the discussion of that question there was only one consideration to guide them, and upon which they could act—namely, the actual wants of the several localities. When the publicans themselves were asked this question—What do you think the hours for the country ought to be? they gave what he considered a very clear, intelligible, but very illogical answer—namely, that the hours should be uniform. This answer was illogical, for he confessed he could see no reason in it whatever. He said to them, accordingly, that they were wrong in their argument, that the question was one which the Legislature would have to consider for itself. He threw overboard, therefore, the principle of uniformity altogether. The question now was, what hours ought to be fixed. He believed that Parliament and the country were agreed that when the Legislature came to the question of the hours at which public-houses should open and close, they should be subject to certain restrictions. By the recognition of that principle, an immense difficulty was avoided. They would avoid the unseemly discussions which, as appeared from the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly), had taken place on local benches of magistrates, and that would allow country places to rest at peace in the knowledge of what their hours were to be. They would avoid also an infinite diversity of hours, which in itself would be an immense advantage. It was better, he thought that a broad and intelligible principle, in which all minor differences might merge, should be laid down and established. If they would look at the Returns moved for by the hon. Member for Stoke, they would find that there was a great diversity of opinion among the magistrates upon this question. In one part of a county certain hours were fixed; in another part of the same county, in precisely the same situation, totally different hours had been fixed. He had come to the conclusion, therefore, that the magistrates, in arriving at their several decisions, though they had doubtless acted for the best, and from the best motives, were more or less biassed by their own

  975
  individual opinions, and the various views they took as to the particular wants of the country. Then, when they came to look to the answers given by the Mayors, they would find them to be the answers of the same class of men as had fixed the hours, and the same answers were given in each case. Where the hours were not fixed by the Act, it was said that the hours determined upon were exactly those that were granted. But there was another thing, and that was that the Police Returns showed the same general state of facts. The practical effect of these Returns was to show that, upon the whole, the Act of 1872 was working well. The streets were more quiet, and people went to bed earlier. But in the Papers that had been laid upon the Table of the House, containing the usual annual Returns of the Inspectors of Police, there was an important admission—namely, that while they all commenced in this way—"Though we are sorry to say that drunkenness has increased," they next proceeded to say—"yet the streets are quieter." They said that though the streets were quieter, there was, nevertheless, an increase of drunkenness. He said, when he introduced the second reading of the Bill, that it was thought expedient to fix the hour for 12.30 in London, and at the same time came, as he thought, to the wise and sound conclusion that in the country it should practically bell. He hoped, however, the House would bear in mind that in fixing the hour at 11, he saw the danger of promoting secret drinking, and if hereafter he should think it necessary to ask for powers to put down that system, they must bear in mind the warning he had given them. Now, on the question of secret drinking, he would ask them to examine how the facts stood. He had already stated that a great deal of that was going on in London, and they must expect to find the practice also carried on in the country; and certainly, looking to the Police Returns, especially those from the northern districts of the country, he was bound to confess that more quiet drinking, as it was termed, in private houses, went on now than for some time past. The practice was for parties to buy liquor in public-houses previous to their closing, and take it home to drink. In all the Returns it was clearly shown that this practice was mainly owing to high wages
  976
  and less work. Those two facts led many into the habit of purchasing, as he had already said, liquor in the public-houses, and taking it home to drink after they had closed. It was generally spoken of throughout the country as the "bottle system," and a mere evasion of the law. Then, again, let the House look at the Returns made by the Mayors of cities and boroughs throughout the country. The Act of 1872 found the habit in existence, and in the Returns he had named no fewer than 35 boroughs were named where the practice was almost general. Among them were Berwick, Bury, Derby, Kidderminster, Manchester, Warrington, Worcester, Liverpool, Stalybridge, and other towns; and if his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Mr. Corbett) would examine those Returns, he would find that generally the limitation of the hours for keeping public-houses open had led to an increase of drinking in private and unlicensed houses. At Hull, the increase of drunkenness was largely attributed to increased private drinking. The Mayor of Newport reported that in his district Young Men's Clubs and Working Men's Clubs were forming where the parties were at liberty to drink as long as they pleased, and carried off bottles from the public-houses at closing time, or procured them from the grocers. This was the most dangerous thing which could happen for the sobriety of the country. He stated these cir-stances in order to point out that if the Government in after years should think it necessary to introduce measures to check the system, the House would remember that the mere fact of the hour of closing made very little difference—that whether it was late or early, whether 10, or 11, or 11.30, or even 12, the practice was the same. If they looked at the answers of the Mayors, they would find that wherever the hour for closing was 11.30, with the exception of Deal, drinking had not increased; and, in answer to the last question put to them in the Circular issued respecting illicit drinking, it would be found that, with the exception of Canterbury, where the matter was uncertain, no illicit drinking was going on. It was impossible to guard against the driving drinking habits from public-houses into places where it would be under less control, and it was this which led him to propose

  977
  11.30, though he should he glad if his apprehension proved unfounded. Let them take a group of boroughs such as Deal, Dover, Sandwich, and places in that district. In Deal the number returned as drunk was 1 in 186; in Dover, 1 in 226; in Sandwich, 1 in 235; in Canterbury, 1 in 235; in Great Yarmouth, 1 in 263; and in Cambridge, 1 in 500. But if they took Oxford, where the hour was 11.30, it was 1 in 657. Then if they went to a part of the country where a totally different system prevailed—say the Principality of Wales—instead of 1 in 657, there was in Swansea only 1 in 74. Then take Denbighshire, where it was 1 in 210, and Flintshire 1 in 110; yet the hours in those counties were 7 A.M. to 10 P.M., and the sobriety of the Principality had been much vaunted. At Hull, where the hour was 10.30, drunkenness was 1 in 81. He would next call the attention of the House to the larger towns, and especially two towns—namely, Manchester and Salford, and Liverpool. Manchester and Salford were not as large as Liverpool, but there was in the latter a larger number of public-houses. The magistrates did all they could to restrain them; but the result was that, while in Manchester and Salford it was 1 in 44, in Liverpool, despite special precautions, it was 1 in 27. He would now ask the House to compare this state of things with that which prevailed in the metropolis, where there was a much larger population, and where the hours of closing were as a rule later. Under those circumstances he had been prepared to find that there was a great deal of drunkenness; but the Returns of the Metropolitan Police District were more favourable than he had expected, inasmuch as they showed that the cases of drunkenness were only 1 in 130. With these facts before them they should be cautious not to come rapidly to the conclusion that the closing of public-houses half-an-hour earlier or half-an-hour later made any great difference. It came to this—what he believed was the object of every man—to put down the abominable extent to which drunkenness now prevailed. His own belief was that they would never accomplish that until they persuaded the people that drunkenness was a great and detestable vice the moment they got the people to see that to get drunk was a disgrace, a thing that was bad in itself,
  978
  and that if they indulged in drunkenness men of their own class would not associate with them—the moment they could persuade the people of this, that moment they would put an end to the evil. His fear, however, was that by attempting to place drinking under severer restrictions they would fall into the error of increasing the extent of that which they wished to put an end to, and that they would drive drinking into places where they would not have the same hold of it as they had at present. That was his great fear, and to prevent it was one of the main objects of the Bill. Since the Bill bad been introduced a new question had presented itself, and that was the question of the hours of opening, and he was somewhat surprised to find that the matter had not been brought to his attention by any deputation until after the Bill was printed. He now found, however, that there was a much greater difference of opinion upon that point than he had expected to find. In fact, the wants of the country were in this respect different. In the manufacturing districts of the North it was the wish of the working classes themselves that the public-houses should not be opened until 7 o'clock in the morning, as they had no wish to go into them until that time, and had much rather that the temptation should be kept out of their way. In the South of England, in the agricultural districts, a totally different feeling prevailed. The agricultural labourers wished to find the public-houses open when they went to work, not that they wished to drink beer, but that they wished to buy beer to take with them to their work for use at their meals during the day. He, therefore, found a considerable difficulty in drawing a hard-and-fast line with respect to these two desires, and he confessed he should like to have this question of the 7 o'clock opening satisfactorily settled; for although the hon. Members for Liverpool and Birkenhead might be able to show from satisfactory reasons that 7 o'clock was a sufficiently early hour at which to open the public-houses in those towns, still that was no reason why the other districts of the country should be placed under the same rule. What he proposed was that they should leave London and the large towns where he had stated, and work on from the 3rd clause, closing in London at 12.30, and in the country at 11 o'clock, and opening in both at

  979
  6 o'clock in the morning. He had now to speak of what he called the pure country. The pure country stood on a different footing from the towns in the country. The houses there were chiefly beer-houses, and the only reason why he had ever separated the beer-houses from the public-houses was simply this—that he was anxious to prevent illicit drinking, which would be sure to take place were they to allow the one to be flooded from the other. The moment they were put upon the same footing that objection vanished. He should, however, explain that when he separated them he included with the beer-houses grocers' shops, refreshment rooms, and other places licensed for the sale of intoxicating drinks. Now to come to the rural districts, to places where the population was under 2,500, and here there came this practical difficulty. The beerhouses had never been on the same footing with the public-houses. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) said it was essential that they should be, but it was not essential, inasmuch as they had gone on for years without. It might, however, be desirable. When they came to small places they must either raise the beer-house to the rank of the public-house, or reduce the public-house to the level of the beer-house; they could not keep the hours different in respect to the length of time the houses were to be kept open; and therefore, looking at the matter in the broadest and most comprehensive view, what he proposed was that the houses in the country should open at 6 o'clock and close at 10 o'clock, which would practically give them the same number of hours as the houses in the towns which opened at 7 o'clock and closed at 11 o'clock. He thought that was a fair way of dealing with the case. He did not believe, from the time this Bill had been laid before the House till now, that any serious suggestion had ever been made practically to alter any material provision of the Bill with the exception of the hours of closing. He believed the Bill had been accepted as a fair attempt, not to run counter to the measure of the late Government, but to do what that Government unfortunately did not do, because, owing to the late period of the Session when the measure was brought in, it could not be fairly discussed. This measure was consistent
  980
  with the whole spirit of the Act. There was not a single Member of the House who had ventured to place a Motion on the Paper that this Bill should be read a second time this day six months. Why? Because they saw it was a good and sound measure, which would conduce to the peace and good order of the country by the introduction of the early-closing licences, which would, he believed, be largely used; because it was known to be an honest attempt to settle once for all the question of the bonâ fide traveller; to place under the protection and superintendence of the police all premises where intoxicating liquors were sold, by occasional licence or otherwise; while the question as to selling at fairs and races—one of the most intolerable nuisances that ever existed—would be once for all put down. At the same time, it was known that the Bill had been drawn with the greatest fairness towards those engaged in the trade, the object being to remove all undue restrictions—to remove the annoying supervision of the police, while giving, at the same time, full powers for keeping order in public-houses; the object being, practically, to introduce a better class of men—men with capital—into the trade, with the view of having it better conducted, and, with reference to offences, to do what he believed was essential—namely, to give to the magistrates actual power as to the punishment to be inflicted, and whether it should be recorded on the licence or not. The Bill, when first introduced, was received in a fair and generous spirit by the whole Press of London. Not one single word was said against it, even by papers hostile to the Government. It was accepted as a fair settlement of a very difficult question, and he would only now read two sentences from newspapers certainly not friendly to the Government—The Times and Daily Telegraph—.They said that the Bill might be roughly described to have for its object the abolition, as far as possible, of all special and exceptional legislation surrounding that trade, and that its main principle seemed to be the true one, and to be shaped in a spirit of fairness and reason. He would say, of fairness and reason towards the trade and towards the public, for he could not forget that the leading journal, which had always taken more strongly than any other newspaper the view that it would

  981
  have been wiser to leave that legislation alone, said that, though the measure was fair and equitable to the publicans, the Government must recognize the wisdom of making it as innocuous as possible to the country. He was obliged to the House for the attention it had given him, and, in conclusion, he would suggest that if they dropped out the 2nd clause of the Bill and accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), which fixed the hours at 11 instead of 11.30, the Bill would accomplish all that the Government expected of it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, in the course of a few years of Parliamentary experience, he had always observed that when a Minister thought it necessary to make a statement of more than an hour's length on the Motion for going into Committee on a Bill that had been read a second time unopposed, he did so because he thought that the Bill was somewhat in danger. His right hon. Friend had taken that course upon that occasion. He (Sir William Harcourt) should never have thought of comparing the Home Secretary of a Government with a majority of 50 or 60 to David going forth against Goliath, and he should have thought that the peroration of a Cabinet Minister's speech might have been made without quotations from any newspaper. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the position—always an interesting one—of the femme incomprise. The Members of the Government had been a great deal misunderstood. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a speech which he had to tell them oftener than once had been entirely misunderstood. The Home Secretary had also been entirely misunderstood as to the objects of this Bill, and its attitude to the Act of 1872. He would take the liberty of telling the right hon. Gentleman that he had been misunderstood with advantage, because if the Government had not been misunderstood, he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to say they would not be sitting where they now were. The misunderstanding would probably never have taken place if the right hon. Gentleman, who had always been an influential
  982
  Member of that House, had said what he said to-night in 1873. Why did not he and the Gentlemen who sat around him tell them in 1873 that the Act of 1872 was a useful and beneficial measure, and that the restriction of the hours was good? and why were not they in their places to help—not the House, but the country to which they belonged—to avoid the defects that they were told this Bill was now to remedy? The right hon. Gentleman was silent on the subject, and it was a politic silence, and a silence that had been richly rewarded. He (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to observe that one of the great advantages of a change of Government was that the Government that came in followed in the line of the Government that went out. That was well, for they changed the Governments on an average every three years—a good average, which he hoped would be continued. The Governments that came followed the same policy with a few distinctions. Like physicians, they might prescribe coloured water or camomile tea; but their more important drugs were always the same. And so the Home Secretary of a great party, the allies of the publicans—["No!"]—well, he would put it, that the publicans were their allies—came forward and said that, with some small exception, his policy on the licensing question was identical with that of the late Government. [Mr. ASSHETON GROSS: No, no.] With some few small exceptions, yes. If not, he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman the Government had been always understood to be in favour of lengthening the hours. They were going to keep thorn at what was fixed by Lord Aberdare in the towns, and in the country districts they were going to make them shorter than in the Act of the late Government. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: No.] Then the right hon. Gentleman was misunderstood again. At present, as he (Sir William Harcourt) understood it, in all country places under 2,500 of population, the hour of closing public-houses was 11 o'clock, with the exception of 70 or 75 districts, where they had adopted the hour of 10. The proposal of the Government, as he understood it, was to make 10 universal in places of under 2,500 inhabitants. But the right hon. Gentleman said that they shortened the hours against his will. The right hon. Gentleman warned them most solemnly

  983
  as to how they should proceed, and he told them that the longer the hours the less the drunkenness; and the climax of his argument was, that in Oxford, where there was comparatively little drunkenness, the hours of closing were 11.30. But why, if that was the case, did a Government, with a majority of 50, shorten instead of lengthen the hours? Why, if there was less drunkenness where the public-houses closed at 11.30, did they compel the towns to adopt the hour of 11? What was the meaning of a Government that believed' one thing, and did another—that forced one place to adopt 11, when 11.30 would be better, and another to adopt 10 when 11 would be better? What was the right hon. Gentleman going to do with Oxford? Oxford now closed at 11.30, and its drunkenness was of a most creditable kind. Well, but the right hon. Gentleman was going to force upon Oxford the hour of 11, and, according to his principle, was going to propagate the odious vice of private drunkenness. Why, if they were sober in Oxford, did they seek to make them less sober than they were? It was a most extraordinary proposition. But the right hon. Gentleman complained that he had been misunderstood. He (Sir William Harcourt) would tell him why. It was because in one of his former speeches about lengthening the hours he said nothing at all about class legislation. They heard nothing about the clubs of which they had been told that night. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he was going to lengthen the hours in the metropolis because people going down Pall Mall after the public-houses were closed would see the clubs open. Was he going to shut all the clubs at 12.30? Was drinking to cease in the Carlton at that hour? Was private drinking in the unlicensed house to be prohibited after that hour? If so, what was to become of hon. Members after a party division? In support of this proposal about class legislation the right hon. Gentleman read them the shocking case of Newport, and he told them that young men's clubs were formed and forming all over the country, where members drank as long as they pleased. The right hon. Gentleman accompanied that by a most pointed announcement that he was going to ask the House to arm the Government with powers to
  984
  put down those obnoxious practices. He (Sir William Harcourt) was against arming the Government with powers to interfere with the people, and when the right hon. Gentleman asked them to put down young men's clubs in Newport, Isle of Wight, and elsewhere; he (Sir William Harcourt) asked him, was he to apply that power to clubs at the West End, to clubs in Pall Mall, and other clubs in the metropolis? and, if not, how he was to reconcile his practice with what he had said about class legislation? The right hon. Gentleman told them that he had made those proposals as to hours because it was a cowardly thing in the House of Commons to shrink from the duty of fixing the hours instead of leaving them to the discretion of the local magistrates. If it was cowardly of the last House of Commons to shrink from that duty, where was the right hon. Gentleman? He (Sir William Harcourt) wanted to know how it was that hon. Members opposite, who thought the House of Commons was guilty of a cowardly act, allowed the Act of 1872 to pass? He objected to the discretionary power in 1872, and not one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him. He said that the House ought to fix the hours or leave them alone. But the matter did not stand now as it stood then. They had thrust upon other people the duty of doing what they would not do themselves. And what had happened? They had consulted the local authorities. They had, as it were, asked their friend for his advice, and they had gone and done the exact contrary of that which he recommended them to do. Well, that was neither civil nor complimentary. Whatever might be the disadvantages of the discretionary power to local authorities, it had this advantage—that it gave them a local verdict by those who were most competent to form an opinion of what was good for the district. They had taken the verdict, and he (Sir William Harcourt) wished to know why they wished to reject it. No doubt the great majority of towns had chosen the hour of 11. Oxford and others had chosen 11.30. But all the places had taken their own hours and had grown accustomed to them, and it seemed to him that the reasons were equally strong against disturbing those hours as they were strong against disturbing the hours in 1872. Why was the demand made

  985
  for the change in the hours at all? Certainly the Home Secretary was quite right in saying that he did not make the change at the request of the liquor trade. He rather repudiated the notion that he would have done anything of the kind. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not see why, for they had been very good friends to him. Now, so far as he had been able to understand the opinion of the trade, they did not wish any change of the hours. He had with him that morning several deputations. One was from the Manchester Central Association of Brewers, and their spokesman authorized him to state to the House of Commons that the Manchester brewers did not require nor desire any change in the present hours. He held in his hand a paper from another body of extensive influence—the Beer, Spirit, and Wine Trade National Defence Association—whose Secretary authorized him to say that they desired no change in the hours. He had also in his hand a paper signed by the Country Brewers' Association, and the only reference they made to the hours, with the exception of a suggestion that public-houses should be open at 5 o'clock in the morning was, that they would leave the whole matter of hours to the wisdom of the House of Commons. Having communicated, too, with those who represented the trade in his own constituency, he was perfectly satisfied that all the trade wanted was to be left alone. He could not conceive, therefore, why the right hon. Gentleman should not have been content to let the question of hours alone altogether. The trade was not dissatisfied with the results to them of the operation of the Act of 1872. It had given them a monopoly of a character they little expected. Those deputations told him that the general effect of the Act of 1872 had been to raise the value of public-house property 30 per cent. Therefore the trade did not wish to disturb the arrangement, though he must say they had hardly treated the party that made it for them with the kindness that might have been expected. He could not help again putting to his right hon. Friend the question, why not leave the trade alone? The House was supposed to be rejoicing in a régime of repose, and they were living under a "Government of silence and consideration." Why was not the Home Secretary silent on this question? Why did
  986
  he not consider it a little longer before he touched it? They had been told that a Government, which had only been in Office for three months, could not be expected to undertake any important measures yet. The House had accepted this state of things with cheerful lassitude, and was grateful for the dolce far niente it enjoyed. Why therefore, disturb them by forcing upon them 11.30 instead of 11, or 11 instead of 10, and so on? Why should a Conservative Government make a revolution in that which greatly affected most people in this country—the hours of going to bed? Whose idea was this of the hours? He could not think it was the Home Secretary's. He had been so willing to cast the hours overboard—as if they were the Jonah of his ship—that he could not help thinking they were originally due to the pertinacious perseverance of the Under Secretary for the Homo Department. He had been so long accustomed to have a Liquor Bill in charge that he was unhappy at the idea of a Session being allowed to pass over without one. The hon. Gentleman had become a kind of political yeast, and kept the House for ever in a state of continual alcoholic Parliamentary fermentation. If the Under Secretary and the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) could only agree to strike a trace, and negotiate, at all events, a suspension of arms on the basis of the uti possidetis, Parliamentary life might again become endurable. The new proposals of the Government had no doubt removed many difficulties, and he would recommend the Government to leave the hours alone and go on to the other parts of the Bill. What was the testimony they had before them on the question of hours? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary told them that the Government had suggested the hours named in the Bill, from the information they had received in answer to a Circular addressed to clergymen, magistrates, and chiefs of police. He (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to ask that that information should be laid upon the Table, because he believed that the answers from mayors, magistrates, clergymen, and police were in favour of leaving things as they were. But the Under-Secretary, with his great experience of Parliamentary practice and usage, said he could not lay that information on the

  987
  Table, because the relations of the police with the Government were of a confidential character. Why could he not lay the Papers before the House, when they related to a public question on which the Government professed to have based their conclusions upon that information? If the information given by the police was sufficient to satisfy the Government, it would surely have not less weight with the House as to the question of the hours which should be inserted in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary further said, referring to the town of Gateshead, that the police complained of increased drunkenness arising from higher wages, fewer hours of labour, and, above all, street drinking and what was called "the bottle system." This statement so surprised the authorities of Gateshead that they caused a Return to be circulated, and this Return did not appear to accord with what the Under Secretary took to be the facts. The Return stated that the drinking in private houses had increased in Gateshead; but so far from ascribing this to the shortening of the hours during which public-houses were allowed to be open, the chief of police stated his opinion that the hours were well suited to the population. It appeared to him that as the Government, through the Under Secretary, had laid such stress upon those Papers, it really was very important they should have them laid upon the Table. The hon. Gentleman shook his head; but it was a principle laid down so long ago as the time of Mr. Canning that no Member should quote from documents unless he was prepared to produce them in the House. There was all the more necessity for that in this case, seeing that the chief constable of Halifax had repudiated the views attributed to him, and that the chief constable of Bradford, in reply to his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), had taken a similar course. He did not for one moment suppose that the Under Secretary intended to mislead the House in the slightest degree; but still, under the circumstances, it was very desirable, and even necessary, that they should have the original documents.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to explain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him in a former debate from what Papers he quoted. He
  988
  replied that it was from these Returns, and from a statement that had been circulated among hon. Members, upon which the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) rose and called his attention to the fact that these Papers were answers to questions connected, with Sunday drinking. What he said was, that as soon as he could he would produce the Papers. On refreshing his recollection the following morning, by reference to the Public Journals, he found that his impressions as to some of the Papers were not correct. He now saw that the Papers from Gateshead were not produced, and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he had known that fact he should not have quoted them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Gentleman had now very frankly stated that he was under an erroneous impression when he quoted from the Papers referred to; but even now he must press the question, why the other Papers were not produced, so that the House might know what were the opinions of the magistrates, the clergy, and chief constables as to the working of the shortened hours and the desirability or otherwise of extending them. But he would now go farther, and put the question on a broader ground than that of Parliamentary practice and precedent. He put the question on the ground that the Government, having shrunk from naming the hours, had thrown the difficulty of fixing them upon Parliament, while at the same time they kept back important information. If the House were to name the hours they ought to have the information. If they were called upon to do so, let them have the official Reports of the Mayors and the chief constables of police all over the country as to the working of the Act. If the Government thought it necessary to ask for that information, and then shrank from the responsibility of fixing the hours, but left it an open question for the Committee, they could not refuse to produce the information they had called for, and which they had in their possession. The Under Secretary was somewhat in the position of Balak, the son of Zipper, who put a certain question to Balaam. The hon. Gentleman had questioned his Balaam, and had proved himself superior in intelligence to the unenlightened Moabite, who did not

  989
  think it necessary to treat the reply of Balaam as a confidential communication. But the great argument that was held up in terrorem was that if the present hours were not lengthened there would be, as there had been, a terrible increase of illicit and private drinking. They were told of the wicked conduct of the young men at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, and other places, who had taken to drinking in unlicensed places. He was afraid that yesterday, upon Epsom Downs, for which they had taken a holiday, and even within the precincts of that House, there was a good deal of drinking in unlicensed places. But he wanted to know, whether no drinking was to be considered virtuous in future except that which took place in public-houses? In the first place, it was not easy so far to define private drinking as to fix a line at which it ought to stop; and, in the second place, unless thirst stopped at a particular period of the evening, no fixing of hours for closing public-houses would prevent people who were so disposed from drinking in their own homes until their thirst was quenched or their appetite was appeased. In old times a man was not thought the less of because he enjoyed his glass at homo with his family, which was not a licensed place, though he could nearly be charged with illicit drinking. But, again, he returned to the question, why should the hours be altered? The hour of 11 seemed to be very generally approved of throughout the country. The chief of police at Newbury was another of the persons who thought his views on the question of hours had been misrepresented. Apparently he had said somewhere that unlicensed drinking had increased in Newbury, and some one attributed to him that he had charged this upon the shortening of hours, whereupon the gentleman addressed a letter to The Times, in which he said that the shortening of hours had, by universal testimony, been most beneficial. Such a circumstance as a number of working men having joined in purchasing a quantity of liquor at the last moment, and then adjourning to some private house and becoming intoxicated was as common before the passing of the Act of 1872 as it had been since, and if public-houses were allowed to remain open till midnight such cases would still happen. The curtailment of the hours of public
  990
  drinking had been the means of promoting the quiet of the town to a very remarkable extent, and it was his conviction that if the hours of opening were curtailed so that men could enter on their day's work free from the temptation to indulge in intoxicating liquor it would have the most beneficial effect. That was common sense. It seemed to him that considerable misapprehension existed on the part of the Government with reference to the effect of the Reports of the Mayors and of the Police on the subject of the increase of private drinking. The admittedly considerable increase in the amount of private drinking was occasioned, not, as the Government appeared to think, by the restriction of the hours during which public-houses might be kept open, but by persons having more money to spend upon drink. When the Home Secretary quoted the case of Halifax, the men there did not say that the increase of private drinking had anything to do with the shortening of hours, neither did the police of Gateshead or Newbury; and if hon. Members looked carefully at the other police Reports they would find they did not connect the two things together. Before sitting down he would say a few words upon the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper. The object of that Amendment had been no doubt partly met by the alterations made in the original proposal, which would have made a difference in every place in the country between the beer and public-houses. That difference would now, to a great extent, but not entirely, be remedied. The beer-houses were in the situation of the dog that got a bad name, and everybody wanted to hang him. They were now, however, a regenerated institution; they had been re-baptised by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, who had purified them, placed them under the magistrates, raised their valuations, and had altogether changed their character; so that now there was no difference between beer-houses and public-houses, and, if there was, the difference as regarded convictions was in favour of the former. It had been said that they must give the licensed victualler a longer time to keep open his house because he supplied refreshment; but he (Sir William Harcourt) believed that that was an entire delusion. He had had inquiries made into that matter.

  991
  and he thought that if his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State went to any gin-palace in London, and asked for a steak, instead of their giving him credit for the high and responsible position he held, they would set him down as a young man from the country unused to the ways of Londoners. He (Sir William. Harcourt) had not made the investigation himself. He was not one of those who pursued drinking in public-houses; he pursued the illicit practice of private drinking in an unlicensed house which belonged to himself. He had not made himself personally acquainted with the habits of gin-palaces, but had employed persons upon whom he could rely to go round to these houses and order beef-steaks, but they could not get them. They had also asked for beds, and there were none of them to be had. The return he had received stated as follows:—"Went to house"—he would not give the name—"saw female, asked her for a beef-steak. 'Oh, no, we cannot provide you with that" Can we have a chop, then?" We do not do that; you can get it at the dining-rooms over the way.'" And so the report went on. The men went to a large licensed victualler's and asked to be supplied with chops and steaks, and the reply was, "Oh, no; we do not do anything of the kind here; you can get them lower down, near the theatre; "and on going there they found it was a beer-house. It was an entire delusion to suppose that a beer-house was not an eating-house, and that a licensed victualler's was. The real truth was that these gin-palaces were not eating-houses, but essentially the drinking-houses. The people who most frequented them were people who had lost their appetite. Therefore, to make a distinction between beer-houses and public-houses, because one was an eating place and the other was not, was to show entire ignorance of the habits of the two kinds of houses. He had been told by a gentleman from Manchester that the meetings of clubs and friendly societies in that city were held quite as much in beer-houses as in public-houses. Then, if that was so, why were the Government going to make a distinction at all between one and the other? [Mr. CROSS was here understood to say that this point had been conceded.] If that was the case, then it was perfectly unnecessary he
  992
  should go on to argue that part of the question. He did not seem to have appreciated the whole extent of the concession of his right hon. Friend. Reserving for the future the consideration how Oxford would be affected by the proposal, he could, in conclusion, only congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the understanding which had at length been arrived at, which had in no small degree surprised the House, and which would, perhaps, surprise the country a good deal more. He was not altogether astonished at it himself, however. In looking at the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, all might see that the Prince Hal of Gad's Hill and Eastcheap was a very different man from King Henry V. The right hon. Gentleman had succeeded to the Throne, and he looked with a very different air upon the Bardolphs, Pistols, and Falstaffs, and even upon the hostess Dame Quickly, from that in which he had regarded them in his "sallet" days of Opposition. He could not help thinking what would be the feelings of the licensed victuallers to-morrow, when they found the right hon. Gentleman saying—
  "Presume not, that I am the thing I was:
  For Heaven doth know, so shall the world perceive,
  That I have turn'd away my former self:
  So will I those that kept me company."
  Those on the Opposition side of the House, however, in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman, might say—
  "I like this fair proceeding of the King's:
  He hath intent, his wonted followers
  Shall all be very well provided for;
  But all are banish'd, till their conversations
  Appear more wise and modest to the world."
  MR. GREENEsaid, it had been his intention to second the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), but the changes which the Government had introduced into the Bill had entirely destroyed the very eloquent speech he (Mr. Greene) had intended to make on the subject. He had felt that the distinction which the late Government had made between public and beer-houses was both unfair and illogical, and he congratulated Her Majesty's Government that they had been able to see their way to placing both classes of houses upon the same footing. He, however, still thought that Her

  993
  Majesty's Government had better have left the question of the hours of closing untouched, seeing how great a diversity of opinion existed on the subject. In the part of the country where he resided the house should be opened at 5 o'clock in the morning, and if they were to be closed till 6 the agricultural labourers would be unable to obtain their beer before going to work. His hon. and learned Friend had twitted the Home Secretary with having derived considerable advantage from the support of the publican interest, and had now rather turned round upon them. He (Mr. Greene) had never heard that the country found much fault with the Act of 1872. Whenever he had endeavoured in public to damage the late Government as much as he could, he had never used any unfair argument about that Act. There were certain provisions, such as the endorsement of licences, which were objectionable to the publicans; but, on the whole, they did not object to the Act. But what they did object to, and what they would not forget, was the Bill of Mr. Bruce, with the 10 years' clause, which was gradually to extinguish them and their trade. It reminded him of the story of the Quaker, who said—"Friend, I will not kill thee, but I will hold the head under water until it takes try breath away." The publicans had seen that the legislation of the late Government tended to disregard the rights of property, and the culminating point came when they put their finger into a hornet's nest. No man could get up in that House and deny that the proposition of Mr. Bruce's Bill was one of confiscation. With regard to the hours of closing, he quite agreed with the Home Secretary that if they were over-strict there would be a revulsion the other way. In his neighbourhood there were six parishes and but one public-house, and that was at last shut up by the landowner. This went on for some time, until it was found that drinking was, somehow or other going on, and the owner could not understand it. He caused investigation to be made, when it was discovered that there were 16 different people selling beer and spirits without a licence. The landowner had since then built a house, under his own control, in every parish belonging to him. That was an illustration that, if they drew the line too tight, they would
  994
  have illicit drinking. Now that justice seemed to be done to beer-houses, he hoped that the Bill would be more satisfactory to all parties, and to that end he should give it his cordial support.
  MR. MELLYsaid, that as the Government had undertaken to make the con cession as to uniform treatment of all licensed houses claimed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford and himself, and also to abandon their proposal to lengthen the hours, and as they had thus expressed their willingness to accept both halves of the Amendment which he himself had moved, with the view of preventing any increase of facilities for intoxication, and putting beer-houses and spirits on the same footing, he thought the best course for the House to pursue would be to proceed to devote themselves in Committee to carrying the Bill into law. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had asked why, if such objections were entertained to the Bill, it had not been opposed and rejected on the second reading. His answer to that inquiry was very simple. He and those acting with him had such faith, that when the proposed extension of hours for keeping open spirit-houses was thoroughly understood, there would come forth such an expression of opinion from the magistrates, police, clergy, and the population generally, as would cause the Government to withdraw what might be called a mistaken proposition. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should consider that his opening statement in introducing this Bill had been misunderstood or misrepresented; and so far as he was concerned, he disclaimed having done either the one or the other. The vital point in the Bill was the question of hours. It was not how great should be the penalty wherewith to punish the publican, or what security they would give the publican for his house, or by what authority licences were to be granted; but how long—for how many hours—the houses were to remain open, and the publican obliged to remain up during the night and whether the beer-house keeper was thus to be placed at a disadvantage. As the measure was introduced, it proposed to increase the number of hours; but, as he understood the Home Secretary, there would be express provisions introduced, not only preventing any extension, but as regarded

  995
  the rural districts, curtailing the hours of spirit-houses by one hour. He was quite prepared to consider the clauses of the Bill in Committee, and he should throw no obstacle in the way of the Bill, which, he thought, with the promised alterations, would be an eminently amending measure. On the second reading he (Mr. Melly) had pointed out its principal demerits. The Home Secretary had conceded almost all he then asked, and he became a supporter of the new measure now before the House.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he had placed several Amendments on the Paper as to the hours of opening and closing public-houses in large towns. After the statement of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, it would not be necessary to submit to the Committee those which referred to the hours of closing. He hoped a favourable consideration would be given to his remaining Amendment, which was to the effect that in municipal boroughs or Improvement Act districts, containing a population of 20,000 or upwards, houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail should be kept closed on week-days until 7 o'clock in the morning. He had received a great number of communications, begging him to secure the hour he had named for the places which now had them, and for others where they desired the houses not to be open earlier than 7 in the morning.
  MR. PEASEsaid, that as the Government had given Notice, through the Home Secretary, of many changes with regard to the hours in the Bill, and as they had consented to accept clauses and to consider Amendments—all of which were matters seriously affecting the scope of the Bill—he suggested that they should not proceed further that evening. The changes suggested by the Government had not been placed on the Paper, and they found themselves in an awkward situation. If they now went into Committee they would do so blindfold. He thought a great deal of time would be saved if the Bill were reprinted. He therefore suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that with that view they should go into Committee pro formâ, and have Progress reported. They would then see what Amendments had been adopted, and what remained. This suggestion he made without any
  996
  desire to do anything but aid the Government in passing a good Bill, and he trusted it would be adopted.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider the point which bore upon closing houses at 10 o'clock in country villages. Such an arrangement would naturally interfere with the comforts of agricultural labourers working allotments, and who at this time of the year remained at work until 9.30. When he ceased labour he had his glass of beer, and went to bed early. If the public-houses or beerhouses were closed at 10, he could not reach there from his allotment task.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he thought the position in which the House was placed was rather a peculiar one, because all on his side of the House understood this Bill to be one which was intended to lengthen the hours, but it was now turned into one which would shorten them. The House was also not well informed how they stood. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) had just said, without any mark of disapprobation from either side, that he understood beer-houses and public-houses were to be placed on the same footing as to hours all over the country. He understood himself that the right hon. Gentleman made the same statement; but he did not agree with the details that he had stated, because, as he (Mr. Lowe) had understood, it was his intention that the hours in London should be 12.30 for public-houses, and 12 o'clock for beer-houses.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I said was that the hours through out the country for public-houses and beer-houses would be uniform—namely, 12.30 in the metropolis, 11 o'clock in the towns, and 10 in the country.
  MR. LOWE: That was an instance of what he was saying, for none of them had understood that to be the proposition. He was not inclined to say anything to impede the Government, but he would put this to them—They were going to strike out the 2nd clause, and to introduce other changes which he had not yet understood; these Amendments, every word of which might be of enormous importance, were not before the House, and with every wish to help right hon. Gentlemen opposite to carry out this measure he must say he had been very much struck with the remarks

  997
  they had made of censure upon the late Government for having hurried their own Bill hastily through the House. If the Government would consider the entire Change of front which they had thought it necessary to make they would see that he was asking nothing unreasonable when he asked them to consider whether it would not be actually better for the progress of the measure if they were to accede to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) and go into Committee pro formâ, giving the House time to see the exact Amendments upon the Paper. Another reason for this course was that the House had not before it the Reports of the heads of constabulary throughout the country. In reply to certain questions from the Home Office respecting the working of the Act of 1872, those Reports had been obtained by the Home Secretary. A Minister had no right to influence the mind of the House by quoting documents on which he put a particular construction unless he laid them before the House, for a different construction might be placed upon them. That was a clear axiom of Parliamentary practice. He could not help thinking that when they considered it the Government might think it right to lay the Papers before the House. It was said that to publish these Reports would be a breach of confidence, but that difficulty could be easily overcome by withholding the names. All they required was to see the information communicated by the police authorities. He was quite sure that nothing would be gained by proceeding with the Bill now; and if the Government would execute these marvellous changes and transformations they must not blame the House for not quite following them.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he thought hon. Members could have no difficulty, because, as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) had said, the changes he proposed were already expressed in some shape or another in the Amendments already on the Paper. He had accepted some of those Amendments, which would come on in due form, and which had already been for a long time under the consideration of hon. Members. As to the production of documents, a Notice of Motion had been given for an early day by a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen), and the Government were not prepared to postpone the
  998
  progress of the Bill till such time as he could bring on that Motion.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he was glad to hear the alterations proposed in the Bill by the Government. The police reports relative to the Act of 1872 were in general favourable to it. Out of 127 Returns, 118 described the results of the Act as favourable, while none of them had spoken of them as unfavourable. He wanted a further restriction of the hours, and not any increase of them. Looking at what had been urged by the advocates of the licensed victuallers on the one hand and by those of restriction on the other, he could not but think it desirable that the endless disputes which had taken place all over the Kingdom should be determined in the House of Commons; and though he was reluctant to give up the advantages of local control, he thought it best, both in the interests of the trade and of good government, that the Government should settle the hours themselves. He thought the Liberal party must take some credit to themselves for the settlement of the hours for country towns and rural districts at 10 and 11. They had been so well backed up by country Gentlemen on the Conservative side, that they had got those hours from the Government. In this the Government had shown themselves not insensible to public opinion the Bill, as originally brought in, was—he would not say an outrage, for that was an offensive expression—but a violation of or rather it would be safer to say, directly contrary to public opinion; and considering that the Government had come in with a majority of 50, and might have carried any Bill they chose, he was surprised they should, in the face of the clergy, the magistrates, the police, and a host of disinterested advisers, have brought in such a measure. However, he was not disposed to flog a dead horse. He was thankful for what the Government had done for the country, though he should have preferred their adhesion to 12 as the hour for closing in London. He was not going to quarrel with them about that, however, nor to divide the House upon it in Committee. He wished now to express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have referred to working men's clubs as being dangerous institutions. It was his experience of them during many years

  999
  that they had been, in very many localities, the best antidote to excessive drinking in public-houses; for where they existed it was found that they did not conduce to drunkenness, but that, on the contrary, cases of drunkenness were rare. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not throw the weight of his influence into the scale against clubs. There were cases where the Government had very properly prosecuted clubs which were not really clubs. As a whole, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that these institutions had done good, and that in some instances some of the lowest public-houses and dram-shops had been deserted for them with very good results. The opposition the Act of 1872 had received at some places was easy to be understood. The publicans anticipated reduced profits, which anticipation had not, however, been realized; and their trade organizations had stimulated, and unduly excited the trade itself against Mr. Bruce's Bill. The right hon. Gentleman instanced Hull as a place where there had been more drinking and earlier closing, and attributed the drinking to the earlier closing; but, in Hull, there was a mixed population of Swedes, Norwegians, and other foreigners, and the magistrates had fixed the hour for closing exceptionally early, at the desire of the town itself. Had the hours been later, the drunkenness would have been infinitely greater. On the whole, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had taken a sensible view of the subject. He thought, also, he had shown a disposition to conciliate the House, and it was some satisfaction to those on the Opposition side of the House to know that they had modified a measure, and brought it more in harmony with the feelings of the country.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he hoped that the hours would be left untouched. He thought the House ought not to proceed further with the measure until the Police Returns were before them. In his opinion, it would be desirable to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he hoped the Government would not consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the sake of the Police Returns, as they related to but one matter that was before the House, and that had been the subject of great discussion. He thought
  1000
  the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman had just announced to the House and in which he was sure the House would support him, had long since been arrived at out-of-doors. He did not thin any case had been made out for referring the Bill to a Committee, and unless a strong case for the purpose were made out he did not think it desirable it should be done. They had happily been spared much agitation on the subject, and both the Government and the public had acted reasonably in reference to it.
  MR. GOSCHENobserved that the Opposition Members of the House were prepared to carry forward this portion of the Bill in accordance with the views expressed on the part of the Government, and without offering anything like factious opposition to it. They had not been disposed to be factious, though they would have been perfectly justified in giving Notice for that day that they could not go into Committee on the Bill without having before them the evidence of the chief constables. That course would have been perfectly justifiable, and he mentioned it to show that they did not wish to embarrass the action of the Government, provided they could show to the House that it was in a position to go into Committee on the Bill with the clauses now before them. There were, however, some technical difficulties, but which perhaps the Government could show did not really exist. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that the House had before it every Amendment in some form or other. He should like to know, however, whether there was one extending the hours for closing beer-houses from 12 to 12.30.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had given Notice of an Amendment for that purpose.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, no clause of the Bill could be discussed in detail at its present stage.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had withdrawn his Amendment previous to going into Committee, and it was doubtful whether he would have proposed an extension limited to the metropolis.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had an

  1001
  Amendment on Clause 2 for treating beer-houses like public-houses.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, as Clause 2 was to be withdrawn, all the Amendments referring to it must fall to the ground. That was a technical difficulty, for he could not see how they could discuss a question that was not before them. Hon. Members on his side of the House had no desire whatever to embarrass the Government, because it was better for the licensed victuallers themselves to have the question settled as soon as possible, and he, for one, would help them in every possible way.
  MR DILLWYNsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman would consent to have the Bill re-committed. For his own part, he did not exactly know what the proposed alterations were to be, and they ought to have the Bill completed by the Government before they went into Committee. It was one for revising the hours, and should therefore be finished pro formâ before going into Committee.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, that he had had 14 years' experience of the House, and had never known an instance in which a Bill of so much importance had been completely re-modelled after the second reading without being committed pro formâ and reprinted. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he was mistaken in saying no other clause was objected to but that which related to the hours.
  MR. ASSHETONsaid, the changes introduced by the Government, which were all in the right direction, were mere matters of detail, such as altering 11.30 P.M. to 11 P.M., and 11 P.M. to 10 P.M. Surely they were perfectly prepared to go into Committee at once on these details?
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought the responsibility of deciding whether they should go into Committee at that particular moment must rest with the Government. Considering that the provisions of the Bill as now settled by the Government appeared to be in the main acceptable to the House, if the Government were satisfied in their own minds that hon. Members on both sides were perfectly capable of comprehending the immediate bearing of the Amendments he should not object to go into Committee; but, on the other hand, he should be more satisfied if he saw the latest ideas of the
  1002
  Government in black and white, and if with that view, the Committee were adjourned for a few days. He believed the proposals of the Government would be extremely well received by the country; but, for the sake even of despatch, he thought it desirable that the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) should be adopted.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not understand the Bill as it related to the hour of opening, or whether it should be 7 and not 6 o'clock on week days. In the borough which he had the honour to represent (Kingston-on-Hull), the hours were from 7 to 10.30; and, for his own part, he should certainly support the Motion for an Adjournment.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELLexpressed a hope that the House and the Government would persevere in having the Bill sent into Committee, for the sooner the whole question was settled the better.
  MR. CHILDERSreminded the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department that to Clause 2 there were three pages of Amendments, and from 40 to 50 of them referred to the question of hours. If that clause, therefore, were omitted, all these Amendments would go for nothing, and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) would not be able to propose an important one now on the Paper. He thought the course to be taken was a most unusual one. Government ought to be content with having the Bill committed pro formâ, which would give them the opportunity of having it reprinted with the Amendments they now proposed.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was ready to take Clause 2 as it stood, with all the Amendments on the Paper; but much the simpler plan would be to pass over this clause for the present, and to make the Amendments suggested on Clause 3. Government did not propose any Amendments, but simply accepted such Amendments as recommended themselves to their approval.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  Preliminary.
  Clause 1 (Construction and short title of Act) agreed to.
  Hours of Closing.
  Clause 2 (Hours of closing public-houses.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that his only reason for proposing to pass to Clause 3 was to save time; but if hon. Members preferred to go to Clause. 2, the Government would accept the Amendments which would carry out their views.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the regular course was to go through a clause and consider the Amendments, and this must be done before a Motion could be put to strike out the clause.
  MR. PEASE, who had the following Amendment on the Paper, in page 1, line 14, before "premises," to insert—" subject to the provisions of the principal Act with respect to the alterations of closing hours," said, he considered that the concession just made by the Home Secretary to suit the hours to the wants of the localities was, so far, in accordance with the object he had in view, that he would therefore not press his Amendment.
  MR. MELLYmoved in page 1, line 14, before "premises," to insert "all." The clause would then enact that the hours of closing public-houses should apply to "all" premises "in respect of which a licence is granted."
  MR. CHILDERSasked what would be the effect of this Amendment on grocers' licences?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied that it would apply as much to them as to public-houses and beer-houses, as they were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved in page 1, line 14, to leave out after "premises" to "public-houses," in line 16, and to insert "premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail shall be closed as follows; (that is to say)."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. FORSYTHmoved an Amendment to the effect that in London the hour of closing all public-houses on week-days should be midnight, instead of giving another half hour as had been proposed by the Government. The hon. Member said, he should be extremely
  1004
  sorry to place himself in opposition to the Government, but happily there was no need to do this, for the Home Secretary had told them that the hours would be fixed by the wisdom of the House. He hoped to satisfy the Home Secretary of the non-expediency of extending the hours in the metropolis from 12 to 12.30. The population of the metropolis was larger than that of Scotland; therefore, in point of fact, the House was legislating for the population of a kingdom, and he hoped the utmost care would be exercised. He supposed that not three Members of the House would say that they did not wish the hour to remain at 12 o'clock, as at present. There were some people who thought that London should have an extension in time for the sake of those who went to theatres, and other places of amusement. He did not agree with them. But supposing it could be shown that they were right, what reason was there why the whole of the metropolis should be subjected to a change which both the public and the publicans did not desire? If London required special legislation because of theatres, why should not Liverpool, and Manchester, and Glasgow, each of which had several theatres, also require special legislation? He did not think that theatre-goers were so much in need of outside refreshments as had been suggested. He had never been in a theatre in his life without finding in the theatre itself whatever refreshment he wanted. There was plenty of Bass and Allsopp, and whisky and gin for those who needed them, and plenty of tea and coffee for teetotallers. In the next place, it would be found that far the greater majority of those who wont to the theatres did not go to the public-houses, and that of those who were found in public-houses after the theatres closed, the majority were those who had not been in theatres at all. He could therefore see no necessity for special legislation even within a certain radius from the theatres. They ought not, when they were dealing with a population of 3,000,000, or 4,000,000, to pass an Act which would only accommodate a very small proportion of that population. At all events, he thought there should be a limit drawn—say, a mile or a mile and a-half from Drury Lane, or any other central point—and that beyond that limit the public-houses

  1005
  of the metropolis should close at 12 o'clock. What was the feeling out-of-doors on this question? Some time ago he put upon the Paper an Amendment such as he was pressing now, and since he put that Amendment on the Paper—an Amendment curtailing the hour of closing till 12—he had only had one letter from a single individual objecting to it. That individual said that he had been very much disappointed in the Member for Marylebone, and that if he pressed his Amendment he would repent of it. The change, in short, was not desired and would be pernicious. He believed there existed in the public mind a strong feeling that midnight was quite late enough for drinking to go on in public-houses, and that by extending the hours for drinking a temptation to drunkenness was created. Scotland's greatest Poet wrote words which were appropriate to the view he was taking, when he said'—
  "See social life and glee sit down
  All joyous and unthinking,
  Till quite transmogrified they're grown
  Debauchery and drinking."
  Taking another view of the subject, he would say with confidence that the pub-beans themselves were in favour of his proposal, for it was well known that drunken men were the licensed victuallers' worst enemies, in that they lowered the character of the public-houses, drove away respectable customers, and imperilled the licences. He therefore moved his Amendment, and asked, with confidence, the Committee to pass it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 22, to leave out the words "half an hour after."—(Mr. Forsyth.)
  MR. CHILDERSasked the Under Home Secretary if he could tell the House how many public-houses and beer-houses were now open in London after 12; and how many would be kept open until 12.30 if that hour were adopted?
  SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that at present there were 129 houses open till 12.15. He would answer shortly the remaining part of the Question.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he could save the hon. Gentleman the trouble. 5,341 public-houses were closed at 12 o'clock, and 2,791 beer-houses, making a total of 8,132 which would be open half-anhour
  1006
  longer than now; 135 houses now were open after that hour by exemption. If all the houses were open the fact would be in accordance with those figures.
  MR. BOORD, in supporting the Amendment, said, the licensed victuallers of Greenwich did not desire any change in the hours. The only persons who claimed an extension of the hours were those few people who wished to go to public-houses after leaving the theatres.
  MR. PEASEsaid, from the statement they had heard, the Home Secretary's argument for the extension of hours in the metropolis answered itself. The police had reported that the exempted public-houses open after 12 o'clock were used not by those who went to theatres, but by those who had not been to theatres at all, and had been turned out of the houses which closed at midnight. He (Mr. Pease) believed that working men's clubs had the effect of taking men away from the public-house, and that in these clubs they acquired a proper self-respect and came to look on drunkenness as a disgrace. Another advantage to them was that they placed no temptation before the members unnecessarily to drink. The publicans of the metropolis did not ask for 12.30, and the extension of the period of drinking to that time would only increase the vice, misery, and crime of London.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, on the other hand, trusted that it would not be assumed that the publicans were not anxious that the hours for closing should be extended. Besides the visitors to the theatres, there were large numbers of persons, such as scone shifters, who were engaged at work in the theatres, and who required refreshment when their work was over. He could assure the House that there had been a considerable demand for an extension of the hours in the borough which he had the honour to represent (Westminster).
  MR. MELLYasked if the demand which he said had been made had been made openly? [Sir CHARLES RUSSELL: Yes.] If it had, it had not been made to the House of Commons. No Petition had been presented in that sense, and 10 of the Metropolitan Members would support midnight as the closing hour. There were three sets of persons who had to be taken into consideration in deciding

  1007
  upon this matter—the respectable classes, the disorderly classes, and the ratepayers. As regarded the respectable classes, he would say that there was no hour which could be fixed but would entail hardship. There were the people who brought flowers and fruit to the metropolis, and who needed refreshments all night. The leading thoroughfares were fragrant with violets at one season, and strawberries at another. The vast numbers of respectable men engaged in finding them their luxuries should be considered. There were others whose occupation was not so savoury—the night-soil men. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but these men, who earned their living in an honourable way, had as much right to be considered as any other class; they earned a fair day's wage by a hard night's work. There were printers by the hundred, and whole newspaper staffs, and all these would be sufferers whatever hour was fixed. What claim had the disorderly classes upon the House? Who were they? The ladies of the Haymarket and Regent Street and their friends—all that was most ruffianly, immoral, and disorderly. That section of London disgraced England. Why give it another half-hour? Ask the police. Consult the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth), with whom he (Mr. Melly) would vote. He now came to the question of the ratepayers who paid the police. The first duty of the police was to protect their property; to attend to unfastened doors and windows; to watch shops; to give notice of fires—these were matters which affected all, to which all willingly paid. Yet, while public-houses were open at night, a large number of police were, instead of attending to this duty, occupied in taking drunken persons from public-houses on stretchers to the station. He, therefore, contended that the ratepayers had a right to complain of the police being occupied in this duty a moment longer than necessary, instead of looking after their property. Then, with respect to the placing of night houses under the strict surveillance of the police, he must say that he thought the course a wise proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but at the very time that he was doing this he was, by extending the hour from 12
  1008
  o'clock to 12.30 to public-houses generally, prejudicing his intentions with regard to those night houses, for he gave them an opportunity of remaining open until 12.30 as well as the great body of the licensed houses in the metropolis. After referring to the decision of Mr. Newton in reference to these night houses, which he (Mr. Melly) contended did not apply to the point at issue, the hon. Member asked his hon. Friends who represented the provinces if they would support this extension of the hours to the London licensed victuallers, when it was determined under the Bill that in such towns as Birmingham and Liverpool public-houses were to be closed at 11 o'clock. He could not understand why an additional hour and a-half should be given to licensed houses in the metropolis. This was another metropolitan job. People already said in the country that because they lived here six months they seemed to think London was not only the centre of, but also the whole country. All the great provincial cities of 200,000 and 300,000 inhabitants were content with 11 P.M. as the hour at which disorder was to end, and peace and quiet to commence. To please 455 publicans out of 5,300, would the Committee open 8,300 spirit and beer-houses for another half-hour? He appealed to the Members for every English borough to refuse to be a party to this iniquitous job.
  MR. HERMONsaid, that the real cause of the discontent among the licensed victuallers of London was that certain exclusive privileges were given to about 129 houses in the metropolis, and he thought that if the Government had simply brought in a Bill abolishing those privileges, the licensed victuallers of London generally would have been satisfied. But it was said that the closing of the houses at 12 o'clock was hard upon persons engaged in theatres. Why, the same argument would apply to compositors connected with newspapers, and other persons engaged at night employment. He had no doubt that if the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) was carried, the persons employed in theatres or on newspapers, and the like, would devise some means by which their wants would be supplied. He would also suggest that the theatres should close half-an-hour earlier, which

  1009
  would greatly facilitate matters in this respect.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYconsidered that the evil "with which they had to deal in the metropolis was allowing the few houses referred to to remain open to the hour stated. He thought that while the owners of the 8,000 licensed houses in London were content with 12 o'clock being the closing hour, that hour should not be extended simply because an exemption had been made with regard to a certain number of houses in the metropolis. Then, as regarded the theatres, he was given to understand that the managers were now in the habit of bringing the performances at those places of public amusement to a close half-an-hour earlier than heretofore. Then, with reference to this extension of the hour proposed by the Bill to keep public-houses open, he was assured by Sir Powell Buxton that when he was a candidate at the last Election for Westminster he was never asked by the licensed victuallers of that city to extend the hour of closing at night from 12 to 12.30. He might add that when Birmingham and Liverpool and other great towns were content with having 11 o'clock as the hour at which licensed houses in those towns should be closed, it was really too much for them to give to licensed houses in London the privilege of being open until 12.30. He had been told by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) that both he and his constituents were strongly against the proposal of the increased half-hour. Many quiet houses in the metropolis wished to shut at 12 o'clock; and if, as he believed would be the case if the Bill passed, they were compelled to keep open up to 12.30, it would be felt as a very great hardship. If the Home Secretary would say that the hours in London were to be as at present, and at the same time do away with all exemptions as to special houses remaining open after 12, he believed it would fully meet public feeling and public convenience.
  MR. HOLMSwished to say a very few words on this particular subject. As the Representative of one of the largest metropolitan constituencies (Hackney), he must state that neither during his canvass before the late election nor since his return had he heard one single word from any of his constituents as to the extension of the hours to 12.30. He thought
  1010
  it was but fair to make that statement, and to show that his constituents, at all events, were not in favour of any extension beyond the present hour of 12 o'clock.
  MR. WATNEYremarked that it was not only the wishes and the convenience of the publicans which the House had to consider, but the convenience of the public at large. Looking at the occupations of large classes of persons in the metropolis, a general shutting up of public-houses at 12 o'clock was quite absurd. Whatever might be the case with regard to the country, it could not be said that the hours named in the Bill for the metropolis were too long; and whatever might be said in favour of uniformity of closing, he trusted that the House would make an exception in the case of the metropolis, in consideration of its peculiar and exceptional position.
  MR. SAMUDAfelt bound, as a Representative of a large metropolitan constituency (Tower Hamlets) to add his voice to that of the hon. Member for the borough of Hackney, and to state that he had not, since the introduction of the Bill, heard one word from his constituents in favour of the proposed extension, although his borough was one from which a favourable opinion might have been expected. At the last Election, although it was known that he was in favour of the restriction of drinking as much as possible, a deputation came to him and most distinctly assured him that there was no wish whatever to have the assistance of the Conservative party to extend or alter the hours fixed by the existing Act, all that was wanted being an assimilation of the hours in different localities, so that one publican might not have an advantage over another. It appeared to him that they were working away from the object which they all had in view when they went beyond the hours which were generally allowed to have been successful in practice throughout the metropolis. Experience was the best test that could be applied in such cases, and relying on that experience he contended that limitation of hours and not the increase or extension of facilities for drinking was the course the Committee ought to pursue.
  MR. RITCHIEwished simply to corroborate the statement which had been made by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Samuda). He had not the slightest hesitation or reservation

  1011
  in declaring that neither during the course of his candidature at the election, nor before nor since, had a single representation been made to him that the publicans wanted an extension of the hours, and he believed it would not be satisfactory either to the trade or to the public if the hours were to be altered the only remonstrance as to the hours of closing was against what was considered the absurd exemption of a few houses in the centre of the metropolis from the uniform hour. These houses were placed within a very small circle, and they were not only allowed but compelled to keep open ostensibly for the convenience of people who were employed at theatres and in other night occupations. The remedy for that was that the theatres should close earlier. They had heard much about the inconvenience of early closing to persons employed at the theatres and in other occupations; but they ought also to take into consideration the convenience of those who were employed in public-houses and the proprietors of those houses, who did not wish to keep open to such late hours. The provision by which the Home Secretary proposed to allow publicans to close earlier with a special licence, would to some extent meet that objection; but unless there was a general uniformity there would always be dissatisfaction. And then, again, in extending the hours to 12.30 to meet the wants of those employed at theatres, &c, it must be remembered that it was proposed to apply this throughout the entire metropolitan district, so that publicans, many miles from any theatre, would be compelled to keep their houses open until 12.30. What was required was not an extension of the hours, but uniformity of closing. What, for instance, could be more unsatisfactory than to find at Stratford, on one side of Bow Bridge, houses were closed at a particular time, while on the other they were open an hour and a-half later? He should vote in favour of general closing at 12 o'clock, as sufficient time for houses to be kept open, and oppose any further extension, as against public interest and public morality.
  MR. W. M'ARTHURwished simply to add his testimony to that of his hon. Friends the Members for Hackney and the Tower Hamlets. He represented a constituency (Lambeth) of 50,000 electors. He had not had a single representation
  1012
  made to him in favour of an extension of the hours, and he believed that it was the last half-hour which did the most mischief in these houses. He should therefore, in the interest of his constituents, vote against the extension.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he represented a large district of the metropolis which was included within the eastern division of Surrey, and fully concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). At the same time he could not but regret his inability to support the Government on this clause, for he felt that not only that House, but the country at large, owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Home Secretary for the great pains and trouble he had taken in preparing the Bill which he had introduced to meet the requirements of the country, and for the fair way in which he had endeavoured to solve this difficult problem. He believed, however, that his constituents would not be benefited by the provisions of the Bill with regard to the hours of closing, but that the evils now existing of rival houses in close proximity being subject to different laws would be increased. In a particular zone in the metropolis people did, no doubt, move about later in the night than they did in other districts. It was not only that people went to the theatres for pleasure, but there were a large number employed all night in the various printing establishments, and other places where night work was carried on. All this, however, was in the centre, as it were, of London, and it would be desirable—if it could be so arranged for the public convenience—that in a small zone the houses should be allowed to be open for an extra half-hour, or even more. But in a very large portion of London no such requirement existed; and here it was he thought, that an error had been made by those who had prepared this Bill. They had assumed that one law would meet the necessities of the whole of the metropolis. London comprised a great many districts, each of which had different views and characteristics, and he thought that the regulations which applied to large towns were more applicable to the greater part of those districts than the regulations for the metropolis. There were many suburban places included in the district of the Metropolitan Board of Works

  1013
  where there were no shops, and no trading carried on, and where few, if any, wanted late hours or later than 11 o'clock. In some parts of Norwood, for instance, there were none; and yet in one street in that suburb there were two first-class public-houses within a few feet of each other, one of which closed at 11 and the other at 12 o'clock. That was only one of very many instances to be found all round the large circumference of what was called the metropolis, and yet the present clause intensified that evil, for the difference would be between 11 and 12.30 instead of 11 and 12. Even in the suburbs where there were shops they were not such as those of Fleet Street and the Strand, where people were about late at night, and where there was a great deal of traffic. It would be almost impossible to fix any boundary without doing some injustice; but he thought some smaller zone might be decided upon—bounded, say, by the river on the South, and including Fleet Street, the Strand, and perhaps Oxford Street, on the North, and a somewhat similar zone on the south of the river, where the hours should be extended, but beyond this district let them not, at any rate, do so. He would have supported any such proposition as that; but when he was called upon to vote for a particular clause which would affect the whole of the metropolis in the way he had described, he had no hesitation whatever in saying that he should in preference support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth).
  MR. LOCKEsuggested that the proposal of the Government would be of benefit to the public if the area were changed to include only the City of London and the metropolitan boroughs. For his part, he did not look with that intense horror which some hon. Members seemed to feel at the proposal to keep open the public-houses till 12.30. But if that hour were made the law, he could not see why every publican should be compelled to keep his house open till that time. It seemed to him a monstrous system to say that, because their ancestors had a right to go into a public-house and demand food and drink, that therefore the public-houses must be kept open everywhere, whether the landlords liked it or not, or whether there was any necessity for them being open or not.
  1014
  He thought that some alteration should be made in that provision of the law. There were a number of places in the neighbourhood of the theatres to which persons retired for supper after the performances were over, and it was but natural that they should wish to wash their supper down with something fluid. Now, was that to be put a stop to because some persons had squalmish feelings, and pulled themselves into a notion that, inasmuch as certain individuals ate and drank too much, it was not right that those who did not do so should be able to procure anything? He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) would give way as regarded the quarter of an hour. [An hon. MEMBER: Half-an-hour.] He (Mr. Locke) did not think that 12.30 was too late; and, as he said a short time ago in that House, he should like the public-houses to be kept open till 1 o'clock. It was argued that the theatres might close earlier than they did at the present time; but it should be remembered that they commenced very much later than they used to do. Covent Garden and Drury Lane used to commence at 7, but now a great number of the theatres did not begin till 8, and as the performances would last about four hours, he thought at least the extra half-hour should be given, so that the people coming from them might procure needful refreshment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not surprised that some metropolitan Members representing outlying districts should not like any addition to the number of hours which existed under the Act of 1872; but the question which hon. Members had to ask themselves was, what extension of hours was proposed by the Bill they were now considering? Practically speaking, the public-houses did not close at 12 o'clock. The street doors, it was true, were closed when midnight came; but persons who were in the house and had purchased what they desired to drink before the closing hour arrived remained there from 15 to 20 minutes. A large number of houses were also allowed, under special licences, to keep their doors open until 12.15, and people in the house were allowed to remain until the clock struck 1. To cut down these hours to 12 o'clock would therefore be a measure of great restriction. In the year 1872,

  1015
  when the Act was passed, the Government did everything it could to reduce the number of hours, but they felt they could not close the houses at 12 o'clock all over the metropolis; and although they made 12 o'clock practically the closing hour, they were obliged to introduce clauses granting in particular cases exemption licences. Now what was the result? No less than 129 exemption licences had been granted. But that was not all. In the year 1873 there had been issued nearly 4,000 occasional licences for special occasions. Now, let the Committee compare what had taken place since 1872 with antecedent action as regarded the closing of public-houses. In 1871, 950 was the average of the occasional licences granted; but when the Bill of 1872 came into operation they rose to 3,896. Therefore, it was obvious there had been a great demand for additional public accommodation owing to the houses being ordered to be closed at an earlier hour. The Government had shown every reasonable wish to meet the views of the House. In this matter they had consulted high practical authorities, who had the means of becoming acquainted with the habits of the metropolis, and who were accustomed to deal with cases of this kind. The answers which he had received from the magistrates were, that they did not think they could with safety to the public recommend the closing of all public-houses over the metropolis at 12 o'clock. Now, the honourable and onerous office which he held made him responsible for the peace of the City of London; and, feeling deeply that sense of responsibility, he could not advise the Committee to sanction the closing at 12 o'clock. It was unadvisable to draw an arbitrary line that all the public-houses within one mile of Charing Cross should be closed at midnight. Many of the metropolitan theatres and places of amusement were distant more than a mile from Charing Cross. If such a line were drawn all the people who were in the habit of keeping late hours would come at night within this narrow one-mile circle, and this, in the opinion of the police authorities, was very undesirable. The people who went to the theatres, moreover, were not the only people to be consulted. Trains were arriving from all parts of the country at a late hour. What surprised him a good deal in the
  1016
  course of the present discussion was, that although many hon. Members had asked what was London, none of them had taken the trouble to give a definition of London proper. No doubt the point was one of some difficulty when they came to draw an arbitrary line; but let the Committee see if it could suggest any area of boundary so as to leave the outlying districts beyond the operation of 12.30 closing. Reviewing all that had been said in the course of the debate, and having given the most careful consideration to the various representations which had reached the House, if the question came to the alternative of 12 or 12.30 for closing, equally and without exemption, all over the metropolis, he must accord his support to the latter proposal.
  Question put, "That the words half an hour after' stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 126: Majority 35.
  MR. ASSHETON, who had given Notice of several Amendments, stated that, as the Government had accepted these Amendments in spirit, if not in their actual letter, he should not trouble the Committee by moving them.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved to leave out, in line 25, the words "is an urban sanitary district, and." This Amendment was necessary in order to meet the change in the provision.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthen moved, in line 25, after the word "contains," to leave out 10,000, and insert 2,500.
  COLONEL BARTTELOTasked his right hon. Friend, if he had carefully considered the question? He, for one, was very glad to see him in the position he occupied; but, with regard to this Bill, he was in a false position, and did not really understand the question. Instead of extending the hours now given, he was curtailing them. No doubt, in certain districts, the proposed alterations would have a beneficial effect; but in many of the rural districts the effect would be the reverse. People were not prepared for such a change. Public-houses in those places Were now closed at 11 o'clock, but under this Bill it would be 10 in places under 2,500 inhabitants. "What were they about to do, for example,

  1017
  in his locality? Every public-house in small towns and small watering-places must be closed at 10 o'clock, and when during the season, trains came in from London, would the people be satisfied? But more than that, by inserting the word "parish," they added to the evil an inconvenience. In his district there were some parishes with 2,500 inhabitants, including the town or villages in them; but an adjoining parish might have less, although the market town might be there, so that in one parish with 2,500 inhabitants the public-houses would be opened until 11, whereas those in an adjoining parish having less than that number must close at 10 o'clock. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was creating a vast number of anomalies which the people would not understand. He suggested that the insertion of the words "town or village" for "parish" of 1,000 inhabitants, and pressed it on the attention of the Government as a matter for serious consideration.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the whole subject had received his most anxious attention. It must be remembered that beer-houses for a long time had closed at 10 o'clock, and the question was, whether it would be wise to alter an arrangement which was clear and intelligible. In the Act of 1872 the word "town "had received a definition which was perfectly incomprehensible, and he hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend would lot the words in the present clause, which he proposed to alter, stand as they were.
  Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross) agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved an Amendment in line 27 by which licensed houses, if situated beyond the metropolitan district, and in a parish of more than 2,500 inhabitants, should be closed on Saturday night at 11 instead of 11.80, as originally proposed by him.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 27, to leave out the words "half past."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTobjected to the adoption of a Procrustean rule. The effect of the Amendment would be to alter the hours in all towns which could now keep open to 12 to the hour of 11, and the city he had the
  1018
  honour to represent (Oxford) would thus be affected. When the Act first came into operation, there were serious disturbances in Oxford; but the authorities having fixed the time of closing at 11.30, the community were now perfectly satisfied, and did not desire other people to force their hours upon them. At Cambridge the hour of closing was 12 o'clock. That borough had returned two Conservatives, and were the constituents to be told that their reward for making that return was that they should be deprived of one hour? Dover also, having gone through many political vicissitudes, at present returned two Conservatives. Canterbury, again, now returned two Conservatives, and they were to be punished for doing so by having their hours of keeping open docked by those whom they returned to support their interests. What would be said of the consistency of a Government which declared that the shortening of the hours had led to illicit drinking, and yet proposed to take that course in the case of so many towns? So far as Oxford was concerned, he protested against this hasty, ill-considered, and inconsistent proposal. They might carry the Bill; but unless they secured for it the support of public opinion, it would not long remain on the Statute Book.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he relied on the Report of the Mayor of Oxford that the practice of closing at 11.30 had worked well, overlooked the next column, in which his worship said he had no doubt that closing at the earlier hour of 11 o'clock would do just as well. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been one of the strongest advocates of having beerhouses and spirit-houses dealt with in a similar manner by the Bill, and yet, speaking of consistency, he now opposed a proposition which would have that effect. As to the complaint of haste, this Bill was brought in early, ample time for its discussion was given before the second reading, the Committee was put off until after Whitsuntide, and the Government had not proposed any Amendments, but simply accepted of several of which hon. Members had given Notice some time ago.
  MR. GOSCHENexpressed a hope that the majority of the Committee would not concur in the view expressed

  1019
  by his hon. and learned Friend near him (Sir William Harcourt). He (Mr. Goschen) complained of the tone in which the Home Secretary came down to recommend these Amendments. It would be better if he would frankly state that the Government came round to the common sense of the country, and on this point he wished to know how far the Reports of the Mayors were in favour of retaining the provisions of the Act of 1872. The Government had got important evidence on this point in their hands. The House did not know what the nature of that evidence was; but clearly, before they were called upon to vote, this great mystery ought to be cleared up, and they ought to understand why the Home Secretary was now in favour of 11 and 10 o'clock, when he proposed longer hours in the original Bill. He should like to know whether the Government were really and heartily in favour of the Amendments which they had adopted, and what their supporters thought of the fact that, in respect of their first great measure, the Government had to abandon their own proposals.
  MR. HALL, regarding 11.30 as a reasonable hour for a town like Oxford, intended to vote with his hon. and learned Colleague (Sir William Harcourt). It was really too bad that in towns whore artizans and mechanics, did not get away from work much sooner than 8 or 9 o'clock, who had benefit-club business to transact, who wanted to smoke a quiet pipe, and who sometimes had to initiate a candidate for Parliamentary honours into the mysteries of Druidism or Antediluvian Buffaloes, should be turned into the streets at 10.30. Why should they be treated like a lot of children in this style, and forced to go to bed like "good boys "at the will of anybody whatever, or by a clause in an Act of Parliament? They had been told by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) that the last half-hour was the time which caused all the mischief. Well, they used to be told c'est le premier pas qui coûte; but here it was not the first, but the last step which was alleged to cause all the difficulty. As had been well said by a journalist on this question of half-hours, there must be a last half an hour somewhere, and why should they not give that half-hour at a time when it would suit the
  1020
  general convenience. The very fact that the magistrates in many of the large towns had used their discretionary power to fix 11.30 as the hour of closing was, he thought, a conclusive proof in favour of retaining that hour.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had exercised a wise discretion in proposing the Amendment he had done, after having full information from the local authorities since the Bill was introduced. If it appeared that there was a general desire to adhere to the restricted hours instead of going back to the old system in the country, he thought Parliament ought to meet that feeling with sympathy and support, and vote for uniformity so far as the provinces were concerned. So far from his right hon. Friend being found fault with for having altered his original views, he deserved the highest credit for having carefully considered the information he had received since the Bill was introduced, and for asking the Committee to make Amendments which he believed would bring it into conformity with public opinion.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENunderstood that during his temporary absence the Home Secretary had made some allusion to his constituents at Deal, where the hour of closing was at present 11.30, having been fixed by the local authorities in accordance with the public opinion of the place. It had been said that there had been no Petitions in favour of the general hour being 11.30. He had himself presented a Petition in favour of extension of hours, but the fact was that the hour of 11.30 being that which was named in the Bill, people had sufficient confidence in the Government to believe that they would not change their opinion, and therefore saw no necessity to petition—there would have been plenty of remonstrance against the change to 11 had it been possible to anticipate this sudden change on the part of the Government; and he must say that he thought it hard that it should be adopted off-hand, before those placed in the position of his constituents could make their objections known. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had praised the conduct of the Home Secretary, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was sure that conduct would always be honourable and straight forward

  1021
  in the passage of this or any other Bill through the House. But when he (Mr. Walpole) spoke of it being desirable to have something like an equality of hours throughout the country, he begged to remind the Committee of what they had already done that evening. They had fixed 12.30 as the hour of closing in the metropolis, and now they were going to take away half-an-hour in country places, making the hour 11, by which they would render more glaring than ever the inequality between the metropolis and the country, and inflict a great blow upon the country trade. But it was said that Government were acting very fairly, because, having fixed 11.30 as the hour, they had ascertained from the Reports of the Mayors and constabulary that 11 would be preferred in the country. To make that argument of any weight, the Committee should know when those Reports were in the hands of Government? Was it only recently, or were they not, as he believed, in their hands long before the second reading of the Bill, if not before its introduction? There was a dark mystery hanging over those Reports which ought to be cleared up. This was not a question between a Government and an Opposition, but one as to what was really most for the public convenience. A Government could not always adhere strictly to the views of its Members when in opposition; but it was strange that those who had twitted the late Government with having curtailed the hours should now themselves propose a further curtailment. The licensed victuallers would be surprised at the change, and would perhaps recollect the words of a former Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (General Peel), who, after a few months of office in a Conservative Government, stated in his place in Parliament that he had learned three things—that nothing was so insecure as a security; nothing had so little vitality as a vital point; and nothing was more elastic than the conscience of a Cabinet Minister. They had had a specimen of elasticity that night, but still he hoped the Home Secretary would not persist in curtailing the hours during which public-houses might be open until it had been more clearly proved that the public would not thereby be inconvenienced.
  MR. NORWOODremarked that in the borough he represented (Kingston-on-Hull) the hour of closing was 10.30, and therefore he had no objection to make to the proposal before them, which would make the loss of benefit less than originally proposed. The Mayor of Hull had stated, in the reply he had made to the inquiry of the Home Secretary, that the majority of the inhabitants approved of the restrictions; but it should be known that that was merely the private opinion of that gentleman, whose reply was made under the seal of confidence, and without any authority at all from the magistrates or corporation.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he hoped the proposition would be passed without opposition. He congratulated the Home Secretary on having made the alterations which he had announced, and said he was one of those who wanted a good Bill, and did not care from whose hands he got it—he would welcome one from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYadvocated 11 o'clock as a satisfactory hour for closing in boroughs; but considered that in rural parishes 10 o'clock would answer every purpose.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERexpressed his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) for the concessions he had made to the almost universal feeling of the country. He never remembered any matter on which there was such a unanimous feeling in the district with which he was personally connected. The magistrates, the public bodies, the ministers of religion, and even the publicans themselves, all concurred in the present hour, and did not wish the extension to 11.30. He asked the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) whether it was desirable to go to a division on this matter? The House had decided almost unanimously to take away the discretion from the magistrates. A great deal might have been said in favour of that discretion, but there was a very strong feeling against it. When they were asked to replace this discretion by an uniform hour they must consider the overpowering feeling of the boroughs throughout the Kingdom. There seemed to be a feeling in the University boroughs in favour of the later hour of closing,

  1023
  but there were only two of them, and he hardly thought his hon. and learned Friend would ask for a division on this subject.
  Question put, "That the words 'half past' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 382: Majority 340.
  MR. WILSONmoved, in page 1, line 27, to leave out "one," and insert "seven," by which public-houses would be closed until 7 o'clock, instead of 1 o'clock in the afternoon of Sundays, as proposed in the Bill. This being one of a series of Amendments which raised the question of the total closing of public-houses on Sundays, the hon. Member, after giving some statistics setting forth the amount of the exports of the country, showing that the exports had doubled within 10 years, proceeded to argue from that fact the increased wealth of the people. It appeared to him that it presented a serious question for the country at large, as to whether the increase of wealth had not resulted in a great increase of drunkenness. He would not detain the House, as he felt that the subject was one of such importance that it ought to be placed in more able hands than his. The House was very likely not prepared for his measure, but he knew that there was a great feeling in favour of it. The metropolitan district would not be affected. The Sunday closing movement had the support of ministers of all denominations, while the feeling of the country on the subject had been manifested by upwards of 1,200 Petitions presented to the House within the last four or five weeks. He knew he was raising a question which could not be decided on the present occasion; but he nevertheless felt it his duty to bring it forward.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment just then, the more especially as he would have other opportunities of bringing it forward.
  Amendment, negatived.
  MR. MELLYmoved, in page 2, subsection 2, line 1, to leave out "ten," and insert "nine." The question was whether the Committee wished public-houses to be closed on Sunday evenings at 9 or 10 o'clock. They were now closed in 70 towns, including Liverpool, at 9 o'clock,
  1024
  and he believed the general adoption of that hour would prove beneficial to the country at large.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "ten," and insert the word "nine."—(Mr. Melly.)
  Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 296; Noes 135: Majority 161.
  MR. SANDFORDmoved, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "six," and insert "five." If the Bill were carried in its present form, it would, with the working classes, be re-actionary and unpopular; for although 6 o'clock might suit some parts of the North of England, the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) showed that in the South the condition of society was such as to render it necessary to have the public-houses opened at 5 o'clock, and this proved that it was necessary to leave some discretionary power in the hands of the magistrates.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "five."—(Mr. Sandford.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSadmitted that there might be special circumstances in which a different hour from that in the Bill might be required, but he could not accept this Amendment, which, if inserted in the clause, would affect all the boroughs in England. It was his intention, at the proper time, to bring forward a proposal, giving the local authorities power to grant special licences in harvest time, and on similar special occasions.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsupported the Amendment. The bargemen and fishermen, whom he represented, went out to sea at dawn, and unless they could obtain their beer for the day before they did so, they had to endure the want of it the whole time they were out at their work.
  COLONEL LEARMONTHalso supported the Amendment in the interest of his constituents at Colchester, who were similarly engaged.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he thought that this was another instance of the necessity of giving the magistrates a discretionary power.
  MR. BULWERalso supported the Amendment, as it would be unfair that the labouring men who left home at a very early hour without breakfast or refreshment of any kind in order to get to their work should be prevented from obtaining at the public-house the refreshment which they required. The most numerously signed Petitions he had presented were all from hardworking men. They were comparatively indifferent as to the hours of closing at night; but they felt keenly the hardship of not being able to get refreshment in the morning when they were called out early by the peculiar nature of their occupation. If they drew a hard-and-fast line in that case it would inflict great hardship on the class he represented. There was no necessity for doing so. People would not rise at 5 o'clock in the morning for the mere purpose of drinking, and publicans would not open their houses unless they knew that they would have legitimate customers. The extension of the hours from to 5 o'clock would be a great boon to the classes for whom he spoke, and certainly would not interfere, as had been proved at Ipswich, either with public morality or good order. One objection urged against the Amendment was that it violated the principle of the Bill. But if any principle was to be adopted, it ought to be the principle of the Act which they were trying to amend. There was no force in the argument that, because a hard-and-fast line was fixed for the closing hours, therefore, a hard-and-fast line was to be fixed for opening. He denied that there was any analogy between the two. The Government were asked by the inhabitants of Liverpool, and other large towns, to fix 7 o'clock for opening, and by those on whose behalf he was speaking to fix 5 o'clock, and the answer given was—"We will oblige neither, but will disoblige both, by fixing the hour at 6 o'clock." For his own part, he did not believe in any attempt to make people sober or religious by Act of Parliament. He did not believe in the abolition of the Ten Commandments, and substituting for them ten sections of statute law. They must appeal to higher motives, give a better training, and trust to the more powerful influences of education, and an improved morality. In this case there would be a clear inconvenience and no advantage whatever.
  MR. EYANSsuggested whether the difficulty might not be met by allowing public-houses to be open between 5 and 6 o'clock for the sale of beer to be consumed off the premises.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he did not believe that such a provision would operate satisfactorily. Who was to watch the publicans to see that it was properly carried out? He would suggest that the 55 districts in the South of England should be allowed to continue to work the Act of 1872, and also the 75 districts in the North of England; and, if necessary, they could come to Parliament for an amendment without touching the 700 districts which did not ask for any alteration.
  MR. T. E. SMITHwas opposed to the extension of hours for early morning drinking, and trusted that the Committee would adhere to the proposition of the Government, that at any rate it would not consent to the public-houses being opened so early as 5 o'clock. Morning drinking was worse than night drinking. ["Oh, oh!"] As a large employer he could say that if a man got first one half-pint and then another, it ended in his being unfit for work all the day after.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, a glass of beer in early morning did a great deal of harm. Cold tea or coffee was much better. He cordially supported the proposition of the Government, that the hours of opening should be 6 o'clock.
  MAJOR EGERTON LEIGHsaid, there were two modes of drinking, drinking for thirst and drinking for drinking's sake. He did not believe that people would rise at 5 in the morning to drink for drinking's sake, and if they did the landlords would not find them profitable customers. There could be no harm in extending the hour of opening to 5.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he hoped the Committee would accept the hour proposed by the Government. It was quite early enough for public convenience. Why they should insist upon having public-houses opened before the public required them and before the magistrates wished it, he could not conceive. A discretionary power would be of but little use, because when one house opened the others were obliged to do the same or lose custom. It was the opinion of the publicans themselves in Liverpool that the drinking in the early morning brought

  1027
  them more discredit than all the other drinking put together.
  An HON. MEMBERasked why the House should be content to fix the hour of opening at 5 o'clock in the morning in the interest of the London artizan, whilst in the interest of the artizans of Liverpool or Manchester they were content to fix it at 6 or 7 o'clock. He hoped 5 would he decided upon, leaving it discretionary with the publican whether he opened at that time or later.
  MR. WYKEHAM-MARTINpointed out that in the agricultural districts, unless the labourers took their beer with them in the morning, they could not procure it the whole of the day. He thought it was not unfair to ask on behalf of these men, who worked hard and were miserably underpaid, that they should be allowed to obtain their refreshment before they commenced work in the morning.
  LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would not announce his decision with regard to agricultural labourers till he had moved the Amendment which stood in his name respecting that portion of the clause.
  Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 382; Noes 52: Majority 330.
  On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, some consequential Amendments were made in the sub-section, to correspond with alterations made by the Committee.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEmoved in page 2, line 9, to leave out "ten," and insert "nine," with a view of closing public-houses in rural districts at 9 instead of 10 on Sundays. The change could not be disadvantageous to anyone, and the publicans themselves had shown their appreciation of total closing on Sundays by adopting it in 9,000 cases. He should divide the Committee on the question.
  MR. GOLDSMIDmoved, on account of the lateness of the hour, that Progress be reported.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he should not oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, as it would be a fruitless effort to continue the Bill at that hour; but he hoped the Committee would be resumed
  1028
  on the following day. He knew that that could not be the case without private Members who had Motions on the Paper making a sacrifice of their privilege, which he was always reluctant to ask them to submit to. Some of the Motions on the Paper for to-morrow had already been withdrawn. The time of the Session was becoming valuable, and he must take that opportunity of disabusing the Committee of the idea, which was too prevalent, that this was to be a short Session of Parliament, and one in which little was to be done. On the contrary, there was a prospect of its being a long Session, and that much would be done. As far as he could judge, within a few days there would be seven measures of first-rate importance before Parliament; and, therefore, unless they husbanded their time and made some exertions, they would find themselves very greatly disappointed as to the prospect in which they had indulged. He wished to suggest that the House should again go into Committee on this Bill to-morrow (Friday.) If this was done they would be more able to deal in a timely manner with the other measures to which he had referred. With the object he had mentioned he would appeal to the hon. Members who had Motions on the Paper for to-morrow, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. E. Lewis), who had intended to bring forward a subject of some magnitude, to forego their undoubted privileges and to postpone those Motions.
  MR. C. E. LEWIS, although he thought it was rather early in the Session to deprive Members of their privilege, said, he would give way to the Government, but only on the condition that other Members followed his example.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could not suppose the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry would relinquish his privilege unless the other hon. Gentlemen followed him in the same direction. If they did so, as the Session advanced, and he could see his way to do so, he would endeavour to find other days for them.
  MR. C. E. LEWISobserved that as he had heard no response from the other Members, he could not give way as suggested.
  MR. HORSMAN, after the promise of the Prime Minister, could not imagine

  1029
  any Member objecting to the arrangement.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the Government to give the House some assurance with regard to the Returns upon which the legislation of 1872 was founded. If that were not done, he should move that the Bill be not reported until those Papers were produced.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when he came into office, he asked for the information referred to, and was told there was no information whatever. What there was was written on unofficial paper, and had been practically destroyed. He presumed that those were in the nature of private communications, and were not intended to be laid before Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the Police Returns presented to Parliament in the usual way, he would see the answers they had given. The right hon. Gentleman should have sought for this information earlier in the Session.
  MR. GOSCHENobserved that the Under Secretary of State had quoted from one of the Papers in question, and as they had been practically used in the debate, what objection could there be to their production? The objections to their production had not come from the chief constables, nor had the criticism, and the country would not be satisfied with changes made on evidence which was not before the public.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, there was no doubt of the Rule quoted by the right hon. Gentleman that all documents referred to in debate by a Minister should be produced to the House. But these Returns did not at all affect the Bill, and they were of a strictly private and confidential character. If they were produced, it would be injurious to the public service; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to move that the parties should be addressed in their public capacities, and if they chose to have their opinions made public then the Papers could be laid on the Table.
  MR. HORSMANobserved, that if the documents were confidential originally, they ceased to have that character, and became public documents the moment they were quoted by a Minister of the Crown in debate, and the House was entitled to call for them.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that the Mayor of his borough had made a private communication
  1030
  in answer to the questions put by the Home Secretary, and he was much surprised at seeing the information he had furnished quoted by the Government.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, the House should bear in mind that the position of a Mayor and that of a policeman were entirely different, and he thought the publication of names might be prejudicial to the interests of some of those who had communicated intelligence.
  MR. GOSCHENwas of opinion that the Government had a right to ask the chief constables whether their communications were intended for the public; and, if so, to lay them on the Table of the House. They were entitled to have all the information given on the Bill; but it was not his wish to place the chief constables in any invidious position. He would, therefore, suggest that the Papers be produced without giving the names of the writers, or the towns from which they came.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was willing to give the effect of the Returns, his only objection to the production of the Papers arising from a fear of jeopardizing the position of the chief constables.
  MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved they were entitled to have the documents laid before them, as they were quoted in debate.
  MR. HORSMANconsidered that, as the Home Secretary had admitted the right to call for these Papers, there was no necessity for pushing the matter farther.
  MR. FLOYERconsidered it was the Rule of the House not to refer to any document which was not upon the Table, and that if anyone did so, the objection to his action in that matter should be made at once, and not subsequently.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not correctly stated the Rule of the House. It was that no Minister should quote from a document which he was not prepared to lay upon the Table of the House.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he was afraid the public out-of-doors would not understand those nice distinctions, and would wish to know the reliability of the Reports, which had been referred to.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLEsaid, he thought the Rule of the House extended

  1031
  only to the production of the particular document which had been quoted, and did not extend to the other Reports, which were of a private character.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, he was willing to accept the offer of the Home Secretary; but he thought the questions sent out to the chief constables ought to be given in extenso.
  MR. PEASEsaid, he understood that any hon. Member who wished to inspect these documents would be at liberty to do so if he called at the Home Office.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he thought it would be derogatory for the House, after settling the most important points in the Bill, to seek to shelter itself behind the non-production of those Papers.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONregarded all the proposals made by the Government as to these documents as equally unsatisfactory, and the proposal of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) as even more unsatisfactory. Still he would not press the matter if it were clearly to be understood that it was not hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who had violated the confidential character of these Reports.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLdenied that the Homo Secretary had violated the confidential character of the Reports until, when cross-examined by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he, in an unlucky moment, turned over some Papers which he had in his hand.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the allusion to the Returns of the police was made by the Under Home Secretary in the course of an argument. He (Mr. Forster) thought it would be a bad precedent if the Government were to quote from Returns obtained from different towns, and then refuse to produce them, so that the House might have an opportunity of testing the accuracy of the summary which the Government compiled. He did not for a moment suppose but that the summary had been prepared with the greatest fairness; but the precedent of bringing before the House the facts so arrived at without producing the Returns would be an awkward one. There was a degree of indiscretion in quoting from these Returns, and he thought the Prime
  1032
  Minister would admit that if the House were to push for it, they would have a right to the production of them.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Under Secretary whether he would state to the House whether any information could be supplied by the Home Office with regard to the endorsement of licences from the Returns in question?—because such information would be received with great satisfaction.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  VALUATION (IRELAND) [SALARIES, &C.] BILL.
  Resolution [June 2] reported and agreed to:—Bill ordered be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 134.]

  CANADIAN STOCK (STAMP DUTY ON TEANSFERS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to make provision respecting the Stamp Duty on Transfers of Stock of the Government of Canada, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 133.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Wenlock Elementary Education * (84); Married Women's Property Act (1870) Amendment * (85); Magistrates (Ireland) and Commissioners of Dublin Police Salaries * (86).
Committee—Public Worship Regulation (62).
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue * (78).

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.
(The lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 62.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee (on Re-commitment) read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that it was with a feeling of great diffidence that he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. That diffidence was increased by the fact that he felt the importance of the question more than, perhaps, some of their Lordships. The most rev. Primate having given Notice early in April of his intention to bring under their Lordships' notice matters connected with the regulation of public worship, introduced, on the 20th of the same month, a Bill bearing the same title as that now before the House. The Bill was put down for second reading on the 30th of April; but on the 27th an appeal having been made to the most rev. Prelate by the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), which was joined in by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; the second reading was postponed in order to give time for an expression of opinion by the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury. On the 11th of May the Bill came on for second reading. The most rev. Primate had relied on certain expressions of opinion by Convocation in 1868; but those had really no bearing on the Bill introduced by the most rev. Primate in the first instance, or on that which was now before the House. In 1868 the Lower House of Convocation expressed an opinion in favour of a revision of the Courts of Law which dealt with ecclesiastical causes, but that opinion had reference to all ecclesiastical causes generally, and not, like this Bill, to only one class of such causes. On the second reading the most rev. Primate stated the Amendments he was willing to introduce respecting the constitution of the Court to which proceedings in the matters to which the Bill related were to be referred, and in reference to some other very important matters. In the meantime, the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury had expressed itself very strongly against certain clauses of the Bill, and against

  921
  legislation in the manner proposed by it. When the Bill came on for second reading, the most scathing objections urged against it in their Lordships' House came from a noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who certainly never had been accused of partiality to the High Church party, and there could be no doubt that his opinions were entitled to the most respectful consideration. In answer to the criticisms of the noble Earl the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) made a speech which, as a specimen of Parliamentary oratory, their Lordships must all have heard with admiration, but which, instead of getting rid of the objections of the noble Earl, contained in itself, perhaps, the strongest condemnation that had as yet been pronounced on the Bill. The right rev. Prelate, having stated that it would be madness to enforce the ecclesiastical law on all points, proceeded to say there were three courses any one of which might be adopted. The first was to enforce the law on all points—which, he had said, would be madness; the next was not to enforce the law—which would lead to uncontrolled licence; and the third was to give to the Bishops power to decide where the law should be enforced and where it should not be enforced. The latter was the course which the right rev. Prelate favoured. Now, while he was opposed to anything like undue licence, he (the Earl of Limerick) ventured to suggest that there was a fourth course which might be adopted, and that course was suggested in the Amendment of which he had given Notice. When the most rev. Primate was introducing his Bill, he alluded to only a certain class of practices against which the right rev. Bench wished to put the law in force; but the fact was those practices were not adopted in half-a-dozen churches in connection with the Established Church. If their Lordships looked to Clause 8 of the Bill now before the House they would see how wide would be the range of the Bishop's discretion if to him were given the function of deciding in what cases the law should, and in what cases it should not, be put in force. In that clause was included all questions relating to the fabric of the Church. The question of the Bishop's power in respect of a reredos—one on which there was at present much litigation—would therefore come within that
  922
  clause; and by its provisions every alteration, however small, in a cathedral or a church, would require a faculty, or objection might be taken to it. All matters of ornament, all the details of public worship, came within its scope. These were matters which concerned not only the clergy, but, according to what had hitherto been the invariable practice, the churchwardens also. But the latter were not made parties by this Bill. Again, questions as to copes, stoles, and other vestments, which were at present in doubt, were brought under their jurisdiction. They would have to decide such questions as to whether a black gown might be worn, whether it should be permitted to wear a stole black or coloured, or whether a cope should be worn in a cathedral. If the power of the Bishop were extended over such matters as these, authority would be given to him greater than had hitherto been enjoyed by the Bishops of the Established Church. But if this authority were given, by what considerations were they to be guided in its exercise? No principle was laid down for their guidance—it was not oven provided that the question for their consideration should be whether the things complained of was lawful or unlawful. The result would be that in the majority of cases they would be incited to interference or deterred from it by popular clamour. He (the Earl of Limerick) thought nothing could be more dangerous to the Church than that popular clamour should become a motive for the Bishop proceeding or not proceeding; and he believed it would be impossible for a Bishop to divest his mind of the consideration of popular feeling or popular clamour when questions such as that with which this Bill would give him power to deal were brought under his notice. He thought he was right in asserting that their Lordships had given a second reading to this Bill merely on the ground that there should be some simplification of the law in respect of ecclesiastical proceedings, but it could not have given its approval to a Bill on which a large number of Amendments were to be proposed which were not then before the House. But since the Bill had been read a second time a strong popular feeling had been roused against it. The Lower House of Convocation of York had adopted substantially

  923
  the same course as that which had been previously taken by the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury, and when a proposition was submitted that it should express approval of the Bill and thank the most rev. Primate for having introduced it, that proposition was negatived by 22 to 15. At not fewer than 100 meetings, held in various places, Resolutions hostile to the Bill had been adopted, and Petitions against it had been sent up from places in which no formal meetings had been held. The Petitions against the Bill might be numbered by hundreds, and the signatures, which numbered many thousands, included those of many hundreds of beneficed clergy of the Church of England. As a rule, the opinion of the Press was not favourable to the measure. A portion of the Press thought with their Lordships that a simplification of the law was called for, but about the form which a Bill to simplify it should take, there was the widest difference of opinion. But though the opinion was general that something should be done, there was no satisfactory agreement as to what ought to be done. He believed there was a very strong feeling among the Members of the Church that the only right and constitutional course would be to endeavour to get first from the clergy in Convocation an expression of opinion as to the required amendments in the ritual law, and to frame a Bill afterwards to enforce the law so amended. It might be urged against the Resolution which he was about to submit that antique archives had been rummaged for it, and that it was in itself antiquated. But it was no more antiquated than the Book of Common Prayer, and if this was antiquated so were the rubrics which, subject to the licence of the Bishop, would be enforced by law if the Bill before their Lordships should be made an Act of Parliament. He did not wish that Convocation should be converted into a Court of Law, or that it should make laws to over-ride the laws of the Realm. He knew it was said that the clergy against whom the Bill was directed would not obey any decision of Convocation. There was no ground for that assertion. The greater number of them had signed declarations, at various times, offering to be bound by all decisions at which the Church might arrive in Convocation. They simply
  924
  wished to be told by the Church what the law was; for they, in common with the great majority of Churchmen, thought the law was based on the rubrics and on a settlement which was a compromise. Primâ facie, the law was with them, as the decisions pronounced of late years were not so much declarations of what the law of the Church was as legislation not in the spirit of the law of the Church. Such were the feelings of those clergymen. It was only a sense of the gravity of the question, and of the very terrible results which would follow the passing of a measure not based on the opinion of the clergy in Convocation and to which so large a number of Churchmen were opposed, that emboldened him to come forward on this occasion.
  An Amendment moved to leave out from the word ("that") to the end of the motion and insert—
  ("Whereas in the Royal Declaration prefixed to the 'Articles of Religion' it is set forth, 'That if any difference arise about the external policy concerning the injunctions, canons, and other constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy, in their convocations, are to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our Broad Seal so to do, and we approving their said ordinances and constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land:
  "'That out of our princely care that the churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them, the bishops and clergy from time to time in convocation, upon their humble desire, shall have license under our Broad Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being-made plain and assented unto by us shall concern the settled continuance of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England now established, from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree:
  "And whereas such differences have arisen and have not yet been so ordered and settled:
  "This House, while admitting the present unsatisfactory state of the laws ecclesiastical, is of opinion that exceptional legislation is not now desirable, but rather calculated to promote vexatious litigation.")—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, it was with no little sense of responsibility that he had ventured to put on the Paper an Amendment declaring—
  "That this House, while recognizing the importance of a revision of the law for the restraint of ecclesiastical offences, considers it inexpedient to proceed with this Bill at present."
  He believed that the House, when it passed the second reading of the Bill, had, in effect, expressed its opinion that

  925
  some steps should he taken for the revision of the law.
  LORD LYTTELTONrose to Order. It was not in Order that the noble Duke should move his Amendment when there was another Amendment already before the House.
  EARL GREY: The noble Lord is certainly right. The noble Duke cannot move his Amendment before the Amendment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) has been disposed of.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the noble Duke had not yet moved his Amendment. Their Lordships might stop him if he did move it; but all he proposed to do at present was to speak on the second reading of the Bill, and he had as much right to do that as anybody else.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, his great object in rising was to ask their Lordships to take further time before proceeding with a measure of this kind. They had heard that one of the recommendations of the Ritual Commissioners was that proceedings before the Bishops should be in camerâ. The most rev. Primate had given a partial application to that recommendation, for the Bill appeared to have been drawn up in camerâ he believed that if it had been prepared in a more open manner, it would not have excited so much feeling. From the speech made by the most rev. Primate when introducing the Bill, one would have supposed that the scope of the measure was a humble and limited one. The most rev. Primate said he did not seek to alter the law, but merely to remove certain difficulties in the way of its administration. But when the Bill itself was laid on the Table, it appeared that its scope was much wider and more ambitious, because it proposed that the Bishop and his officers should take proceedings not only in cases where the law was already declared, but also in cases where it was not. It was understood at first that the assessors were to be lay and ecclesiastical, but in the Bill the assessors were constituted in a different manner.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that he did not state that by the Bill there were to be lay and ecclesiastical assessors. He stated that it had been the original intention of the framers of the Bill that there should be such assessors.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the most rev. Primate had stated what had been the original intention; but that intention had not been carried into effect. The Bill, when it first appeared, provided for assessors appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Church Discipline Act; but it was found that that proposal was very unpopular, and by a further change the Bishop and his Chancellor were substituted. It appeared to him that the most rev. Primate desired to steer a middle course between the recommendations of the Ritual Commission and those of Convocation, without giving full effect to either; and he thought that course was fatal to his measure. With regard to the feeling which this measure had elicited out-of-doors, he would observe that the Lower Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and the Northern Province had both expressed a very strong opinion against the Bill; and there was an equally decided objection to it on the part of a large body of the laity. Important alterations had been made in the Bill since its introduction; but some of those alterations rather increased the objections to it. One of them was at direct variance with a portion of the scheme stated by the most rev. Primate, because it gave each side in a cause the power to appeal to the Archbishop. The Bishop would be required to publish the reasons for his decision, and this, with appeal to either side, would be as fruit-fid of litigation as any regulation which it would be possible to devise. The Archbishop was to have power to state a case for the Court of Final Appeal. Why should not this power be given to the Bishop in the first instance? One of the grounds stated by the most rev. Primate for the introduction of the Bill was that it would obviate the great expenses hitherto incurred in these proceedings; but he (the Duke of Marlborough) could not see how the expense would be diminished—on the contrary, his opinion was that the proceedings prescribed by this Bill would be not less costly than they were now. Another strong objection to the Bill was that the monition would take effect pendente lite. The clergy felt that this would be a most oppressive enactment. Again, the Bill only dealt with one class of offence. He did not deny that proceedings antagonistic to the feelings of the great majority of the members

  927
  of the Church—proceedings of the so-called Ritualistic character, and which approached somewhat closely to practices in a sister communion—were carried on by some clergymen. He should be glad to see such proceedings limited, or, where carried too far, put an end to; but there were other practices, such as the proclamation of heretical opinions, which were much more calculated to undermine the Church, and he thought that when they were pursued by clergymen they ought to be among the offences included in any Bill of this kind. He wished to point out to their Lordships that this Bill would create a machinery for dealing with ecclesiastical offences before those offences were accurately defined. For instance, according to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough), the whole of the law relating to the rubrics was in a state of the utmost uncertainty—so much so that the right rev. Prelate thought that as to enforcing it a great deal must be left to the discretion of the Bishop. "Was it practical or in accordance with common sense to provide a restrictive—he might almost say, a penal machinery to enforce a law which was itself in such an unsatisfactory condition? If the right rev. Primate had first of all recognized the fact that the rubrics were in an unsatisfactory condition, that there were in them many things which were doubtful and which it was desirable to have decided, and if he had taken steps to ascertain and define the law before asking the Government and the country to pass a measure to enforce the law, that course would have been eminently satisfactory, not only to those against whom the measure was directed, but to all moderate men who valued the forms of the Church of England. If a representative body of the clergy had had an opportunity of considering the rubrics and canons of the Church and effecting in them such changes as were suited to modern times and requirements, a measure founded on the result of such deliberations might have been carried without dissent. But what would be the effect of passing this Bill? He had presented a Petition from 800 of the clergy, who, rightly or wrongly—and he was far from agreeing with them—protested against the regulations of Divine service being settled by a secular House; and, if the Bill passed, they would look upon them
  928
  selves as martyrs, and they would go through all the stages of inhibition and prohibition and see their wives and families reduced to beggary rather than submit to an enactment passed under such circumstances. On the other hand, if an ecclesiastical body pronounced an opinion upon the rules, rubrics, and canons, he believed a large body of them, would be willing to be bound by the results of such deliberation. Though he (the Duke of Marlborough) considered their contention wrong, yet it could not be denied that these views were entertained by a large body of the clergy, and were maintained with great pertinacity. Could anything be more disastrous and fatal than that such a large body of the clergy should be compelled in this way to leave the Church, the boasted merit of which, as an Established Church, according to the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll), should be its breadth and comprehensiveness? The diversity of feeling with which this measure was regarded was shown by the variety of Amendments which would have to be considered if the House went into Committee. A noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Selborne) would go further than even the right rev. Prelate, and would authorize a Bishop to lay down rules for a diocese by which each clergyman would be bound if he did not at once take steps to protest against them.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, he did not know how far it might be permitted by the Rules of their Lordships' House, but he thought it was an inconvenient course to discuss Amendments which were on the Paper before they were reached in due course.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the Amendments, being on the Paper, were public property, and it was allowable on the Motion to go into Committee, to refer to that which would have to be discussed in Committee.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, the inconvenience was, that the effect of Amendments was stated very differently from the sense in which they were understood by those who proposed them.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, the noble and learned Lord would be able to set himself right when the Amendments came to be discussed. But their Lordships could not but be struck by the scope of the Amendments of the

  929
  noble and learned Lord and of the noble Lord who sat opposite—Amendments which amounted to two separate Bills, which had not received the assent of a second reading, and which themselves might require to be extensively amended. Therefore the House could not give a fair and judicial consideration to these Amendments. Their Lordships would not be indisposed to consider the feelings of the laity as well as of the clergy—and very many Petitions from the former had been presented against the Bill—and the laity had not had any regular opportunity of considering this measure. There had sprung up of late years an annual gathering known as the Church Congress, which was sanctioned by the Bishops and largely supported by members of the Church of England, and it was a pity that a measure of this character should not be submitted to such a gathering as the Church Congress. It was impossible that the measure could give satisfaction to even moderate men among the laity, unless they had further opportunities of considering it; and he therefore appealed to the Bishops to say whether in their hearts and consciences they did not think it would be injudicious to press it now, and whether they would not prefer to postpone legislation for a year. In conclusion, he entreated the most rev and right rev. Prelates to consider this aspect of the matter, and not to press the Bill at present.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is now three weeks since your Lordships were asked to consider the question of the second reading of this Bill. When that question was proposed, a long and unusually interesting discussion followed, and many Members of your Lordships' House expressed their opinion on the subject of the proposed legislation. The difficulties of legislating on this question were fully and broadly explained; the particular provisions of this Bill were largely—and, as I think, strictly—criticized; but, so far as I can recollect, no Member of your Lordships' House expressed the opinion that there ought to be no legislation on the subject, and certainly no Member of your Lordships' House proposed on the second reading the rejection of the Bill. My noble Friend who has just sat down (the Duke of Marlborough) at that time referred to some subjects on which he has spoken to-night, and I think that
  930
  the view which he then expressed was—not that there should be no legislation on this question, but that legislation upon it should be introduced, not by the Episcopal Bench, but by Her Majesty's Government. The result of the discussion upon the evening to which I have referred was an understanding that Amendments in the Bill should be proposed by the most rev. Primate who had introduced it, and that other Members of your Lordships' House who take an interest in this question should also express, in the shape of Amendments, the alterations which they wished to submit for the approval of your Lordships. My Lords, I am bound to say that the interval which has elapsed since that time appears to have been diligently used; for, as far as I can recollect, it is a considerable time since, upon the Motion for going into Committee on a Bill in this House, 32 pages of Amendments were to be proposed for your consideration when you reached it. But among those Amendments I find some from my noble Friend the noble Duke who has just sat down—at least, if I understand rightly—
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: It was a mistake. They were not intended to be proposed in my name.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was going to say that the Paper of Amendments had a heading which, to me, at least, was novel—"Amendments to be moved by the Earl Nelson (formerly the Duke of Marlborough.") And, my Lords, not only is that so, but I also find a considerable number in the name of the noble Earl (the Earl of Limerick) who commenced the discussion to-night; and from these Amendments I gather, not only that he is not averse to legislation on this subject, but that he is so keen for legislation that he wishes to include in the Bill all the members of the Episcopal Bench, against whom he has evidently directed the suggestion that they at this moment are largely violating the ecclesiastical law. Under these circumstances, I cannot but think if your Lordships were, after what has occurred, to proceed now to reject the Bill upon the Motion for going into Committee—if you were to refuse to consider those various Amendments which have been put on the Paper—you would pursue a course which is not only unusual in this House, but

  931
  which out-of-doors would he characterized as capricious and unreasonable; it would, I think, he inconsistent with the respect due to any Member of your Lordships' House who should have introduced a measure of this importance; but, above all, it would not be characterized by that respect which we all must feel for the most rev. Primate from whom the measure has emanated. Upon this part of the subject I should not wish to say anything more, except to ox-press my surprise, and to venture to hope that I have been mistaken in something which I thought I heard a short time since. I am under the impression that I heard from my noble Friend who has just sat down (the Duke of Marlborough) that he had presented a Petition, signed by 800 clergymen of the Church of England, stating that they would feel it to be their duty not to obey any law proceeding from a secular source. My Lords, strictness and order in the case of Petitions presented to this House have not been so carefully observed of late years as they formerly were; but I would still venture to ox-press a lingering hope that I misheard what I seemed to hear, and that it is not the case that there are clergymen of the Church of England who entertain such an opinion, or who, if they do, have expressed it upon the face of a Petition to this House; and I own I cannot persuade myself that my noble Friend, who I am sure upon these subjects holds no such views himself, has presented Petitions which contain such statements.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, he had said so in his speech, but he had no reason to believe that such a statement was on the face of the Petition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I very much rejoice to hear that there was no such statement on the face of the Petition. My Lords, I cannot regret that upon the Motion for going into Committee on this Bill your Lordships' attention has been so much directed to the question as a whole. I quite agree with the noble Duke that, as a general rule, on going into Committee on a Bill, nothing can be more inconvenient than referring in detail to Amendments about to be proposed. Undoubtedly, that is the case with regard to Amendments which may be described as merely verbal or Amendments in detail. But I cannot
  932
  help thinking that where you have Amendments of a different character—Amendments which represent alternative schemes—it is desirable that your Lordships, before going into Committee, should at once have presented to you a general view of the character of those Amendments, in order that, as far as possible, your attention may be called to the broad issues which, in Committee, you would have to decide. My Lords, with this view, I cannot help asking your Lordships to permit me shortly to indicate what appear to me some of the principal questions which are raised by the Amendments. And, first, I will refer to the alterations proposed to be made in the Bill by the authors of it since the discussion on the second reading. The Amendments to which I refer may, as far as concerns my present purpose, be said to deal principally with these two questions—the question of the tribunal before which cases under this Bill are to be brought, and the question of what has been termed "the discretion "reserved to the Bishop as to the institution of ecclesiastical suits. As I understand it, the proposal of the Bill, in its present form, is that causes are to be tried in the first instance in the Diocesan Courts of the Bishop by the Bishop, with the assistance of his Chancellor, if he be a layman and a lawyer, and, if not, then with the assistance of a Legal Assessor; and, as I understand the provisions of the Bill, the Legal Assessor to be appointed in the place of the Chancellor is to be appointed by the Bishop, and to hold his office during pleasure. Now, in the first place, it is obvious that a provision of this kind gives the Bishop an Assessor for any particular case or for any particular number of cases. When we consider that there are more than 20 dioceses in England and Wales, and that, as may be hoped, the number of cases in each will be extremely small, it is obvious that a Judge appointed for this purpose cannot take rank with what we may term a Judge of the first class. Then the question arises—"How are you to pay the Judge to be thus appointed? "I find no provision on the subject. Then, again, one naturally asks—"What are to be the legal relations between the Bishop and the Judge?" The Bill provides that the Bishop is to consider the case along with the Judge. If they differ, is the Judge to overrule

  933
  the Bishop or the Bishop the Judge, or must both agree before any decision can be come to? These appear to me very difficult questions, and the answers to them will involve difficulties in themselves. Again, observe what may arise out of legislation of this description. Twenty-eight Diocesan Courts in the Kingdom, and Judges in them who are not, from the eminence of their position, likely to command great respect for their decisions; Is that likely to promote uniformity in the law? I apprehend not. Is it likely to check litigation—litigation in the nature of appeals? I should think not. These are the difficulties which strike my mind with regard to the tribunal. But now let me turn for a moment to the discretion of the Bishop, whether suits shall be instituted or not. I wish to express my own opinion on that point. I am not against reserving a discretion to the Bishop in these matters. It is true I think the Bishop himself ought to prefer that no such discretion should exist; for I cannot conceive anything which would place a Bishop in a more invidious position than to have to say whether a particular suit shall proceed or not. But, at the same time, I can see many cases in which it may be for the interest of the Church that a discretion should be reposed in the Bishop, and I should not be unwilling to give it. But then the subjects should be limited, as far as it is possible to limit them, on which that discretion should be exercised. I observe, however, it is proposed that an appeal may be made from the Bishop to the Archbishop, in order that the Archbishop may exercise his discretion against the discretion of the Bishop. Now, I understand what appeals upon matters of law mean, but I do not understand appeals upon matters of discretion. If you are willing to repose a discretion in the Bishop, do it fully, fairly, and completely; but do not appeal from one man to another man, as if the discretion of the second must, of necessity, be better than that of the first. I now proceed to another class of Amendments, which appear to me to introduce very broad and grave propositions for your Lordships' consideration. I refer to the Amendments of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne). If I understand those Amendments correctly, my noble and learned Friend proposes that the Bishop should, in the first instance,
  934
  be at liberty to issue a monition ordering a particular thing not to be done in any church in the diocese. And, as I understand it, the Bishop may do that of his own accord, without any representation made to him—without hearing any evidence or calling on the incumbent for any explanation—but simply of his own free will and, if such a thing could be proposed, of his own imagination. The incumbent against whom the monition is directed is not to be allowed to dispute in any way the fact as to what has been done, or supposed to have been done, in his church; but he is to be at liberty to appeal only upon the law, and to argue before the Court of Appeal whether the proposition of law involved in the monition is a correct proposition or not. I own that although I am sure these proposals of my noble and learned Friend have been drawn up with the greatest care, and with the object of promoting peace and harmony and of avoiding unnecessary litigation, yet I cannot but feel apprehensive of the consequences of legislation of that kind. An incumbent against whom such a monition is issued may know that the act upon which the monition is founded never took place at all, and I cannot think he would sit down patiently without the right of disputing the allegation that he committed the act, and would rest content with arguing whether the monition of the Bishop is right in point of law or not. I cannot believe that such a provision would work satisfactorily. But even supposing that the incumbent was content to proceed to dispute the monition in point of law in the Appellate Court of the Archbishop, see what would be the consequences. You will have the Appellate Court of the Archbishop declaring whether the monition of the Bishop is right or wrong, although before the Bishop himself there has been no argument whatever as to the legality of the monition. For my own part, I cannot understand anything in the nature of an appeal, except an appeal from some primary judgment after both sides had been heard. Now, observe a further consequence. Suppose an incumbent appeals against the law of the monition to the Archbishop—who is to appear on the other side? The parishioners, it seems, may do so if they please; but is the Bishop himself to appear as a litigant

  935
  in the Court of the Archbishop in order to justify the legality of the monition he has issued? I now proceed to another class of provisions to which your Lordships will be asked to assent. The proposals of the noble Earl who sits on my left (the Earl of Shaftesbury) also deal with questions of procedure. The noble Earl proposes that where a representation of the character indicated in the Bill is made to the Bishop, the Bishop is in the first instance to ascertain whether the complainants and the clergyman complained of are both willing to take the decision of the Bishop on the subject without appeal. If they are, then the Bishop is to state the mode in which the hearing of the case is to be conducted. The noble Earl proposes that there shall be a Judge appointed for the provincial Courts of the Archbishops, who, if the Archbishops think fit, may also fill the legal office they at present fill; and if the complainants and the incumbent do not agree to take the decision of the Bishop without appeal, the Bishop is to send the complaint to the Archbishop of the Province, and then this Judge is to hear the complaint, either in London or on the spot, as may be most convenient. Further, it is proposed that the first step to be taken by this Judge before the case is decided is that he shall reduce into the form of a special case the whole of the facts proved, before him, and in that way every expense is to be got rid of in all further proceedings, except the expense of reading and adjudicating upon that special ease. I own there are in this proposition some very great and singular advantages. In the first place you obtain in all these cases the decision of a first class and a permanent Judge. Moreover, you obtain in the way great uniformity of decision. You obtain also the power to eliminate one stage of litigation, because the appeal from that one Judge will be direct to the Queen in Council. I ought, however, to remind your Lordships that another proposal of the noble Earl is that this Judge is to make his report in the shape of a special case to the Bishop of the diocese, by whom the decision is to be pronounced in accordance with the report; therefore, you do not disturb in any way the authority and proper jurisdiction of the Bishop of the diocese, but you arm him with the assistance of a
  936
  Judge of the first class. The noble Earl's scheme fails, however, in one particular, inasmuch as it still preserves to the Bishop that discretion of which I spoke just now. I will now briefly refer to the proposal of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Peterborough. As I understand, the right rev. Prelate proposes that in ecclesiastical litigation there shall be what I may term—to use an illustrative expression—a neutralization of a certain area of arguable ground. The rubrics have been found to accommodate themselves so much to the habits of the people that there would be considerable difficulty in interfering by legal proceedings for the purpose of putting a stop to them. The noble Duke (the Juke of Marlborough) spoke on that subject with great force. He said that the natural and logical course of legislation of this kind was not to provide for enforcing to the letter the rubrics as they now stand, but to take steps for the purpose of altering the rubrics and accommodating them to the necessities of the present day. My Lords many persons, I know, are of a sanguine disposition. Perhaps I am not sufficiently so; but I am bound to express my firm conviction that whether you look to Convocation or whether you look to Parliament, or whether you look to the Church outside of Convocation and outside of Parliament, the idea that in our days it will be possible to arrive at any alteration for a settlement of the rubrics appears to me to be out of the range of probability. To say that there is to be no legislation till the rubrics are altered is to say that there is to be no legislation at all. But I own that I see in the proposal of the right rev. Prelate much that in a rough way would arrive at conclusions which, for practical purposes, are not unlike conclusions which might be arrived at by rubrical alteration. Let me refer to matters to which the Amendments of the right rev. Prelate are directed. As to the position of the minister in the Communion Service during the time of consecration, that is a subject on which it will not be expected, nor would it be proper, that I should give any expression of opinion as to what the law on the subject may be. But I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the position of the question. I think that there are in the Church of England a great number of persons, a

  937
  large number of clergymen, who have no sympathy whatever with Ritualists—I use a familiar expression—or Ritualism, who have no sympathy with those extravagances and those departures from the law that have been referred to in this House, and who yet feel themselves much distressed and disquieted by the present law on the subject of the position of the minister during the time of consecration. Upon that subject there have been two decisions more or less final by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not desire to say one word as to the law on the question, but every one knows how extremely difficult it is for any person—for any layman, perhaps for any lawyer—to be satisfied that those two decisions are re-concileable with each other. In one of those cases no defence was made, and only one side was heard. Those decisions, I think, cannot be regarded as final. If we look at the past history of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council we shall be able to find that certainly there is, at least, one case of great importance in which a decision arrived at by the Judicial Committee was afterwards altered by the same tribunal. Suppose it should hereafter be decided by the final tribunal of the country that the proper position of the minister at the time of consecration is to stand in front of the people looking towards the East—remember that if it should be so decided that decision will be compulsory upon every clergyman of the Church of England. Now, if that should turn out to be the law of the Church, it is a law which would press heavily upon the consciences of a great many clergymen of the Church of England. But suppose the tribunal should decide that the proper position for the clergyman is to stand looking towards the South. There are said to be hundreds of clergymen whose habit it has been all their lives—before Ritualism was thought of, certainly before it was developed—to stand in the other position. I ask your Lordships to consider how a final declaration of the law to the effect that I have mentioned would bear upon the consciences of those clergymen. But suppose the Court of Ultimate Appeal should say the rubrics are not sufficiently clear to enable them to define the position—that they do not find materials in the rubric to make the obligation certain
  938
  —and they therefore leave the question of the position of the minister during the time of consecration in dubio; then, after a long, difficult, and acrimonious litigation you will have come to the very conclusion at which the proposal of the right rev. Prelate asks your Lordships to arrive. But, my Lords, I think it very probable that your Lordships will be of opinion that if the proposal of the right rev. Prelate should be adopted, it should go somewhat further, and determine that no litigation, under this Bill or under any existing law, should be commenced to enforce any penalties in these matters. I am not sure that I might not add to the subjects, with which your Lordships would desire to deal, the penalties for not using the Athanasian Creed. My Lords, I yield to no one in the desire to maintain this Creed as a formulary of our Church; but I can conceive that many of your Lordships, even though you should desire to maintain the Creed as a formulary, might yet consider that, looking to the way in which the consciences of men are affected by it, it would be wise to enact that no civil penalties should be enforced for the conscientious non-user of that Creed. I apologize for having taken up so much of your Lordships' time. We are now dealing with an extremely difficult subject, and I have made these observations frankly and honestly, in the hope that I might be of some assistance in enabling your Lordships to overcome the difficulties. Even a bold man might shrink from the kind of legislation which is now contemplated; yet I cannot but think that introduced as the measure has been with the support of the right rev. Bench, it is incumbent upon us to give it full consideration, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to frame a legislative enactment which will have—not, as has been suggested, a disquieting and disturbing, but rather a healing and quieting effect throughout the Church. My Lords, I am not without hope that by a combination of the proposals of the most rev. Primate with some others that have been proposed or suggested, this end will be attained; and sure I am that if it be attained your Lordships will have no cause afterwards to regret any amount of trouble and attention which you may have bestowed upon its fulfilment.
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN*: My Lords, I ought to apologize for venturing

  939
  to trespass now on your indulgence, even for a few minutes; but having been nearly 30 years a member of Convocation—a longer time, I believe, than any one now on this Episcopal bench, perhaps, with a single exception—I may be permitted to say something with regard to that body which has been referred to in the Amendment now before your Lordships, and also in the remarks which have just been made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. And in order that I may not be charged with undue presumption, I beg to add that I rise after previous communication with the most rev. Prelate who has laid this Bill on the Table of your Lordships' House, and with his encouragement; and I feel bound to acknowledge the generous toleration and courtesy invariably manifested by that most rev. Prelate to his Episcopal Brethren, and particularly to those who have the misfortune sometimes to differ from him. My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of saying that legislation is not necessary; on the contrary, I believe it to be urgently and imperatively required for two distinct purposes——first, for the amendment of the constitution and procedure of our Ecclesiastical Courts; and secondly, for the correction of lawless excesses and extravagances on the one side, and of the no less lawless negligence and slovenliness on the other side prevailing in the ritual of some of our churches. But in order that legislation in so sacred a thing as public worship may be effective, and in order that it may produce harmony and peace, and not lead to discord, disunion, and disruption, it must carry with it the hearts of the clergy. The clergy of the Church of England are about 20,000 in number, planted in every parish of the country, and they exercise a powerful influence, not only spiritual and religious, but also moral, political, and social. My Lords, it would be an evil clay for the Legislature if it were to alienate the affections of the clergy; it would be disastrous for any Administration to forfeit their confidence; above all, it would be calamitous for the Episcopate of England to be estranged from the clergy. My Lords, England, in former days, had bitter experience of the evil effects of such a separation, especially in the period dating from the Revolution of 1688 for about a century, beginning with the secession
  940
  of some of the most learned and pious of the clergy, the non-jurors, and continued through the dreary and dismal period of the Hoadleyan and other controversies, and terminating in another secession—that of the Wesleyans—from which we have not yet recovered; these were some of the unhappy results produced by a want of confidence between the Bishops and clergy of the Church. The 20,000 clergy of the Church of England are not represented in this House, and none of them have seats in the other. It is, therefore, more incumbent on the Bishops to communicate their sentiments to your Lordships, on matters which vitally concern their temporal and spiritual interests, such as the Bill now before you. Let me, therefore, be permitted to report their feelings upon it. They describe this measure as a Bill for the coercion of the clergy under severe pains and penalties in matters uncertain and ambiguous. Their complaint is that Bishops are resorting to Parliament to compel the clergy to obey rubrics which are doubtful, while some of the Bishops themselves violate rubrics which are clear; as, for instance, by ministering confirmation to whole railfuls of candidates at once. They complain that Bishops desire by means of this Bill to enforce upon the clergy what is called the Purchas judgment, which prohibits them to use an Eucharistic vestment, while some Bishops disobey that judgment which commands them to wear an Eucharistic vestment while celebrating the Holy Communion on certain festivals in their own cathedrals. Ritualistic excesses are great evils, but Episcopal inconsistency and despotism are not more venial. My Lords, I report simply what I hear, and hear with sorrow and alarm. We seem to be on the eve of a great crisis; it may be an ecclesiastical and civil disruption; and who can foresee the consequences, both to the Church and Realm? Where, therefore, is the remedy? It consists, I would humbly submit, in treating the Church as a Church, and not merely as a department of the State. You desire, my Lords, to check Romanism by this Bill; but you will give the greatest triumph to Romanism that it can possibly wish for if you treat the Church of England as an Act of Parliament Church. This is what the Church of Rome desires her to be, and if you treat

  941
  her as such, perversions to Romanism will become more and more frequent among us. Let me entreat you, my Lords, not to despise the synods of the Church. This is a policy which Romanism would welcome at your hands. Let me implore you to show some regard to the Church of England in ritual matters, as represented by her ancient Convocations. They have many claims on your esteem. We owe the Book of Common Prayer to the Convocations. The Convocations of the Church of England at the present time contain very many members of great piety, wisdom, and learning, and exercising great influence in all parts of the country. If in spiritual matters you show no deference to Convocation, you will alienate the clergy of the Church. But if, on the contrary, you treat Convocation with respect, you will conciliate the affections of the clergy. And then, legislation on such matters, which without Convocation will be abortive and obnoxious, and will lead to dissension and disruption, will become comparatively easy, and will allay strife and produce harmony and peace. Convocation, I am aware, is not a popular assembly—you may disparage it if you will, but you cannot afford to despise its influence; that influence is powerfully exercised over a large number not only of clergy, but laity. Convocation is an energetic instrument for good, because its authority is acknowledged by many who will not readily submit in spiritual things to secular power. It is, indeed, objected to Convocation that the laity are not represented in it, but this is surely a mere verbal objection; the action of Convocation is fenced on all sides by the intervention of the laity; Convocation cannot originate anything with the view of framing a canon, without a licence from the Crown; and to give effect to synodical canons the subsequent assent of the Crown is requisite; and they cannot acquire legal validity without the authority of Parliament. It cannot, therefore, be said that the laity have not great influence over Convocation; and no one need fear any ecclesiastical domination from it. But it is also objected that the parochial clergy are not adequately represented by it. Be it so. Convocation is very desirous to remove this objection. Let it be enabled to do so. But even now the parochial clergy—yes, even some among them who are
  942
  charged with ritualistic excesses—have publicly declared, in the Petition of the 800 clergymen presented by the noble Duke, their willingness to submit to the judgment of Convocation in doubtful rubrics; and therefore the authority and influence of Convocation are great for putting an end to religious controversies, and for producing and maintaining peace. Will not, therefore, your Lordships permit a reference to Convocation for such purposes as those? Let me entreat you to hold out an olive branch of peace to the clergy by such an overture as that. But it is also said that Convocation made a surrender of its synodical powers at the Restoration. This I beg to deny; it merely gave up its powers of taxing itself, but its synodical, and even judicial powers in certain respects were recognized, as your Lordships may remember, by a largo majority of the Judges of England in the reign of Queen Anne; and though in the stagnant times of religious lethargy which succeeded, the exercise of those powers may have lain dormant, yet its functions have never been abdicated, and if in the present crisis a resort is made to Convocation for the clearing up of those rubrics, such as the rubric concerning the position of the celebrant at consecration, and the rubric concerning ornaments and vestments, and for the revision of such rubrics as may seem to need to be revised, and if the most reverend Presidents of the Southern and Northern Convocations would give specific directions accordingly to their respective provincial synods, having first received licence from the Crown to treat thereon, there is no reason to doubt that in the course of a week a peaceful solution might be arrived at with regard to such matters as require amicable adjustment previously to legislation upon them. I am confirmed in this opinion by the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate, distinguished by his eloquence and ability, to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred. I confess, with all submission, that I should prefer that such matters as those were first committed to the consideration of the synods of the Church, and not first proposed in a section or Schedule of an Act of Parliament. This course seems to savour too much of constituting Parliament into a synod on doctrine and ritual. Indeed, the very matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred—

  943
  the Athanasian Creed—which is one that touches the essence of all religious doctrine, would itself involve a reference to Convocation for the alteration of a rubric, because that creed is to be recited by the people, not alternately with the minister, as is too often the case, but in its totality; and whatever the minister may do or not do, the people have a right to the creed, the faithful laity of every parish have a claim to it, and they cannot be deprived of that right by any exemption of the minister. My Lords, on Tuesday last the noble Duke who moved the second reading of the Bill for the abolition of patronage in the Church of Scotland, referred with just pride and honourable satisfaction to the assistance he had received from the deliberations and decisions of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, as exercising great influence, and tending much to promote the success of that ministerial measure. May I not venture to appeal very respectfully to the noble Duke, and inquire whether the Bill now before Parliament for regulating the worship of the Church of England would not have a far better chance of becoming law, and of affording general satisfaction to the clergy and laity of the Church, if similar regard were paid to the deliberations of the Convocations of England as are now being manifested by Her Majesty's Government to those of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland? Let me remind your Lordships of the words of one of the most distinguished laymen of England—Dr. Samuel Johnson—who, when in a time of religious lukewarm-ness, he was rallied by his Scotch biographer, Boswell, on having said that he Would stand before a battery of cannon to restore the Convocation of England to its full powers, replied with a determined look and earnest voice, and said—"And would I not, Sir? Shall the Presbyterian Kirk have its General Assembly, and shall the Church of England be denied its Convocation." I know not, my Lords, whether the noble Earl who has proposed the present Amendment means to press it to a division; for my own part, I would rather be content to leave the matter to the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government, and to the most rev. Prelates who preside over the Convocations of the two provinces, in full confidence that the licence to treat converning ritual matters, which was freely and graciously conceded by the Crown
  944
  to Convocation, under the recent administration of Mr. Gladstone, may not be denied to Convocation by his successors in office, and that under the paternal authority of the Archbishops of the two provinces, and under the Divine blessing, the deliberations of Convocation may be so guided as to avert the dangers, both civil and religious, which now threaten us, and to conduce in the most effectual manner to the prevention of strife, and to the preservation of peace.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that in reply to the concluding observations of his right rev. Brother, he had no hesitation in declaring it would give him great pleasure if Her Majesty's Government would issue Letters Patent under the Broad Seal to Convocation, inviting them to take into consideration a general revision of the rubrics, and he for one should be most ready to lend his assistance in every way, with the view to enable that body to bring its deliberations on the subject to a satisfactory conclusion. It seemed, however, to have escaped many of those who had addressed the House that evening, that the late Government had issued Letters Patent under the Broad Seal, authorizing Convocation to revise the rubrics of the Church, and that the decision of Convocation on the subject was in print and accessible to every one. He felt bound at the same time to add that, after having given the matter their most serious consideration, they—no doubt, for reasons which were very weighty—determined to make very few changes in the rubrics indeed. Among the changes which they declined to make was that relating to the position of the celebrant. Seeing, then, that Convocation had already gone through the subject with great care, he did not himself believe that they would very much vary from the decision at which they had arrived under former circumstances. Perhaps, however, Convocation had refrained from much change in the rubrics, under the impression that there was no power to enforce the law. He thought, therefore, that nothing was more likely to enable Convocation to effect a more complete revision, than that a Bill, such as that under discussion, by means of which the law would be enforced, should receive the sanction of Parliament. If, therefore, Her Majesty's Government should deem it right to issue Letters Patent to

  945
  Convocation to revise the rubrics, he should be happy to use his best endeavours to bring their deliberations to a happy conclusion. He thought it, at the same time, a mistake for some of those who had spoken in the course of the discussion to suppose that the decisions of Convocation would be all in their own favour. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—for whose lucid statement on a very tangled subject he felt greatly indebted—speaking with all the authority of his high office, had recommended that the House should take the larger portion of the Bill as it stood, and incorporate with it the Amendments of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury). For his own part, he did not see that that advice was likely to present any insuperable difficulties in the way of legislation; and as to maintaining the discretion of the Bishops, with the object of preventing frivolous causes, he was sure that if the clergy were polled in reference to the matter, they would all desire that such a discretion should exist. Taking, then, the discretion of the Bishop as provided for in the Bill, and the restriction which the noble Earl opposite proposed to lay on the Bishop's jurisdiction by calling on a person appearing before him to state at the beginning of a suit whether be meant to appeal or not, he saw no good reason why the two propositions might not be combined. As to the question of the Judge, he was convinced that it was desirable to have one Judge who would decide the causes in question; but then the point was one which was beset with difficulty. The noble Earl proposed that the Judge should have a salary of £4,000 a year; but when the question was asked, where was the money to come from? the answer was "Out of the pockets of the parochial clergy, in the shape of payments out of the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners"—thus absorbing as large an amount as they could pay in one year towards poor livings. Now, that was a point which in his opinion required consideration; but he saw no reason why the difficulties connected with it should not be surmounted. If the noble Duke who had spoken that evening (the Duke of Marlborough) was, he might add, aware of the obstacles with which he and those who had acted with him had had to contend in drawing the present Bill, he would hardly have complained as he had
  946
  done of the conduct of the right rev. Bench. The noble Duke seemed to be of opinion that it ought not to have been drawn up in camerâ, but in curiâ. He would, however, assure him that the difficulties of drawing it up in camerâ were quite enough. There were now five schemes on the subject before the country, including the schemes pure and simple of the noble Earl and the noble and learned Lord opposite; and if the views of the clergy could be ascertained, he felt satisfied they would be found to prefer the scheme embodied in the Bill now under consideration. The noble Duke surprised him by suggesting that they should not only wait for Convocation, but for the Church Congress, which was to assemble at Brighton in August. He had the greatest respect for the Church Congress, but he did not think the Imperial Parliament could be asked to wait for its decision. With regard to the views of the laity, their Lordships and the other House of Parliament surely might be expected to represent them, and therefore, if the noble Duke wished to ascertain the opinion of the laity, he had only to look to the votes of Parliament. If they were to consider the opinion of ecclesiastical assemblies, their Lordships might have seen some notice in The Times of the proceedings of the body which met at Peterborough last week, where the laity were unanimous in their approval of that measure. He trusted the Bill would be disposed of now. To put it off for another year would be a grave calamity. If there had been excitement, he would ask whether it was desirable that that excitement should continue for another year? The question was ripe for legislation. He had laid before their Lordships the reasons which had made the united Bishops bring that measure forward, and if they failed in receiving their Lordship's approval for taking some steps that night, they would fail altogether. He felt almost convinced that this was the turning point at which their Lordships were to declare whether they were anxious to maintain the principles of the Reformation, or whether they would allow the ancient Church of England to drift away from those moorings which had kept her safe through many a storm.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, referring to what had just fallen from the most rev. Prelate in reference to the Conference

  947
  lately held in his diocese, wished to explain, that the laity present, by an unanimous vote, approved the main principles of this Bill; that they also suggested certain Amendments in it, and, on the understanding that those Amendments were adopted, they were unanimously in favour of immediate legislation.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND, in answer to the Lord Chancellor, wished to say that in his belief, the only reason why their Lordships passed the second reading of the Bill without a division, was that they did so solely out of respect and deference to the Episcopal Bench, and he would therefore appeal to the most rev. Primate and the Episcopal Bench generally, whether in return for their Lordships having agreed to the second reading without a division, and having thus accepted the principles of the Bill, it would not be a graceful and conciliatory act on their part to defer the measure for another year. They had it from the most rev. Primate that if formally authorized to do so, Convocation would proceed to the revision of the rubrics. If that were done, then in another Session two separate measures might be introduced simultaneously, one declaring what the rubrics were, and the other providing the means of enforcing the observance of them. Such a course, he believed, would carry with it the support not only of the clergy and laity, but of all right-thinking men.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that although he had given Notice of Amendments to be proposed in Committee, he did not in any way feel himself precluded from voting against the Bill going into Committee at all. He was determinedly opposed to this measure, and also to any legislation of this kind at the present time; but, in the event of that opposition failing, he should then try to make the Bill do less evil than it otherwise would do. In deference to the united wish of the Bishops, and also on account of the many Amendments that were to be made in the Bill, they did not divide on the second reading; but it was rather hard to ask them not to divide now because there were so many Amendments on the Paper. If the most rev. Primate had gone a stop further than he did, and bad said that he had obtained or would seek a licence from the Crown for Convocation to consider the measure concurrently
  948
  with Parliament, he would have advised the withdrawal of opposition; but they had heard from the Lord Chancellor that it would not be wise to consult Convocation in this way. At first the clergy feared they would be oppressed by certain portions of the Bill, and now that they had seen the way in which Convocation had been treated they were determined to fight for the constitutional rights of Convocation. It might be, as the most rev. Primate said, that the clergy would prefer his Bill before others if they were properly consulted. He was surprised to hear it said that the clergy who had petitioned the House were determined not to obey the law:—on the contrary, he would refer their Lordships to the terms of their declaration to show that they were prepared to stand by the Prayer Book if it were explained by the synods of the Church, and that they recognized the function of Parliament to legislate and of the Courts to interpret the law. If Convocation were consulted as to the rubrics a matter which seemed to be surrounded with difficulty would be simplified, and there would be peace instead of division. In respect of almost every analogous ecclesiastical measure of any magnitude which had been passed by Parliament, the antecedent decision of Convocation on the matter had been distinctly stated. And it was right that it should be so, because the clergy were not represented in the House of Commons, nor were they represented by the Bishops, whom they did not elect, and who sat in the House as temporal Peers. It would involve the risk of estrangement between the Bishops and the clergy to press this Bill without the decision of Convocation, which the clergy were prepared to accept. Why should their Lordships force on legislation and prevent the possibility of the canons being altered by the body which alone in the eye of the law had a right to alter them?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was extremely desirous that the functions of Convocation should be rightly established, and that all its just rights should be respected; but for this very reason he regretted to see exaggerated claims put forward on its behalf, because they might make its true claims ridiculous. It appeared to him that the present Bill was, in fact, a Bill to amend the Church Discipline Act, and the Church Discipline Act was never referred to Convocation.

  949
  But he need not even go back so far as that, for the very provisions which had been discussed that evening were introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) some years ago, when nothing was heard about the necessity of the approval of Convocation. The claim now made on its behalf was entirely new, and it was not consistent with the fact to say that Parliament was advancing a new claim or encroaching upon an old and established jurisdiction in proceeding to deal with this Bill. He protested against the competency of Parliament to deal with it being denied, and against its being supposed that any encroachment was thereby made.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, that there were fifteen Acts relating to Church discipline, from the reign of Henry VIII. down to the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., still on the Statute Book, besides others of later date. These were Acts for the purpose of enforcing the law of the Church, and in no one of them was there the slightest trace of Convocation having been consulted as to the proper mode of accomplishing that object. All that Convocation had ever been asked to settle were questions of doctrine and worship, constitutions and canons; but the law of the land, for the purpose of giving effect to the law of the Church, had, ever since the Reformation, been regarded as matter for the consideration and determination of Parliament alone. It was time to look this matter broadly in the face when some of the clergy said that they would not obey any law which was not made by, or with the consent of Convocation. The clergymen who said that, claimed all the privileges of Establishment, while at the same time they repudiated all its conditions.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he believed that if Convocation had been consulted on the Church Discipline Act, the inconveniences now complained of would probably not have arisen. The Amendments of which Notice had been given were so extensive as to make the Bill altogether a new one, and, as the clergy were not represented in that House, it was difficult to ascertain their opinion within a short period unless Convocation happened to be sitting. The clergy were embarrassed as to what were the true motives of the alterations proposed—they did not ask to be relieved
  950
  from civil penalties, but they wanted to know what really was the law, which as faithful clergy they were quite ready to obey. He contended that the laity were opposed to the measure. The right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Peterborough, in arguing to the contrary, cited the resolutions passed by a diocesan Conference of Peterborough as entirely in favour of this measure. The fact, however, was that the Conference approved the Bill on condition that it was altered in the way they suggested.
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH, interposing, said, the Amendments discussed by the diocesan Conference were at the time on the Notice Paper of their Lordships' House, and not Amendments suggested by themselves. The Conference approved, firstly, the main principles of the Bill; and, secondly, asserted the advantage of immediate legislation.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that did not materially alter what he had stated. At all events, this was the only definite expression of lay opinion which could be cited in support of the Bill: but many meetings both of clergy and laity had pronounced opinions against it. He did not think the laity of the Church of England were anxious that the Bill should pass, and when it went to "another place," if it should go there, the opinion of the laity would make itself heard. He should vote against going into Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, the most rev. Primate had made a most important communication to the House, to the effect that if Convocation should obtain permission from the Crown, he, on his part, would do his best to promote a revision of the rubrics. He would, therefore, ask whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to advise the Crown to issue Letters of Business to Convocation? There were questions of still greater importance than were contained in the Bill which would have to be considered if the House went into Committee. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) had alluded to the position of the clergyman before the altar as one of the matters which the most rev. Primate would bring before the Committee, and had also referred to another subject which it would be only fair to include among those questions

  951
  —namely, the use of the Athanasian Creed where there was a conscientious objection to its use. This was neither the time nor the place to enter into a theological argument about maintaining the Athanasian Creed in the Liturgy; but this he would say—there were many persons, whose opinions were not to be slighted, who held that the whole of the principles of Christianity were contained within the four corners of the Athanasian Creed. Well, were their Lordships to consider in Committee a Bill which was to render neutral or indifferent a form of faith which the Church had adhered to ever since it had been promulgated? Were their Lordships going to place that on neutral ground, and at the same time were they going to declare that they would punish an unfortunate clergyman who might have a conscientious belief in the importance or expediency of using a dress of one kind or another? These were questions which the House ought to consider to-night, when perhaps they might do more than they desired, and more than any of their Lordships might intend.
  LORD ORANMORE AND' BROWNEsaid, he had come to the House without any doubt about the vote he should give; but he confessed the course which had been pursued, and the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, had left his mind in a state of confusion, and he did not know what he was going to vote for. The question with respect to the position of the clergyman at the table involved one of the main points at issue; it involved this—whether they were prepared to accept a great extension of the sacerdotal system or not. The view that the celebrant was making an offering for the congregation prevailed largely among the High Church party, and hence it was that the clergy took the Communion without the laity participating in it—which was a practice of the Roman Catholic Church, and entirely antagonistic to the spirit of the Church of England. His principal inducement to vote against the Amendment was the universal exclamation against the Bill by the High Church party.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order that a division might be taken on the Amendment of the noble Duke.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then another Amendment was moved to leave out from the word (" that") to the end of the motion and insert—
  ("This House while recognising the importance of a revision of the law for the restraint of ecclesiastical offences considers it inexpedient to proceed with the said Bill at present.")—(The Duke of Marlborough.)
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 137: Not-Contents 29; Majority 108.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Spencer, E.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Sydney, E.

  York, Archp.

  Verulam, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Devonshire, D.

  Bangor, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Manchester, D. [Teller.]

  Eversley, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Portman, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Strathallan, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Abergavenny, E. [Teller.]

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Airlie, E.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Bandon, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Hereford, Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Camperdown, E.

  London, Bp.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Cathcart, E.

  Norwich, Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Chichester, E.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Dartrey, E.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Derby, E.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Ducie, E.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Effingham, E.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Belper, L.

  Granville, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Grey, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

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

  Harrowby, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Carlingford, L.

  Morley, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Onslow, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Castlemaine, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Sommers, E.

  953

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  O'Neill, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Denman, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  De Ros, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Selborne, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Foley, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Sondes, L.

  Hammond, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hampton, L.

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

  Hatherley, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Kesteven, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Lisgar, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D. [Teller.]

  Templetown, V.

  Rutland, D.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Acton, L.

  Boston, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carew, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Devon, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Eliot, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Morton, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Teynham, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Gough, V.

  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 7 (Interpretation of Terms) postponed.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYthen rose to propose a series of Amendments, of which he had given Notice, the most important of which were taken from his Bill of 1872, which had been passed by their Lordships' House, and read a second time, in the House of Commons. The principle of his proposition was the appointment of a single Judge for the two Provinces of Canterbury and York,
  954
  to whom ecclesiastical questions, arising under the Bill, should be referred. If that proposal were agreed to, the rest of the Bill would, no doubt, have to be essentially altered; and, unless it were adopted, all the other Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name would fall to the ground. One great object in appointing a Judge, as he proposed, would be the improvement of the procedure in the Provincial Courts, while, what was most desirable, a feeling of confidence in the impartiality of the tribunal would be secured if a man of experience and standing in the law were placed at its head. Time also would be saved by the adoption of the course which he suggested, for under the present system there might be no less than four hearings. The Judge, if it were desired, would be sent down to try the case on the spot where the offence was alleged to have occurred, thereby saving a great deal of time and expense to the litigants, especially if there were many witnesses. Under the present system the Mackonochie Case lasted nearly three years, and the expenses amounted to several thousand pounds—he was afraid to say how many, but it was nearly eleven. That was a system which they wanted entirely to alter. By his proposal he was informed that with the appointment of a Judge going down to the spot, like an Election Judge, with all the powers of a Judge of one of the Superior Courts, no suit from the time of its being instituted till the time it reached the Privy Council ought to occupy more than three months; while its expense would not be greater than that of an ordinary case at Nisi Prius. In the matter of the institution of a suit, he did not see why they should give a Bishop a larger power than they gave to a Lord Chief Justice. If they went with a case to a Lord Chief Justice, he would say whether it came within his jurisdiction, and if it did so come within his jurisdiction, he could not refuse to entertain the suit. No greater power should be vested in a Bishop's Court than in the Court of Queen's Bench. He had formerly pointed out the impropriety of placing the office of accuser and Judge in the same person, as was now the case with the Bishops. His Amendment would remove that anomaly. His proposal would relieve the Bishops of great anxiety, and also from any charge

  955
  of partiality. It ought to be a recognized principle that the laity had a right to promote the office of the Judge in those matters, and here by his Amendments they would secure an experienced Judge, whose decisions would extend over the whole range of ecclesiastical law, and might be expected to satisfy both the clergy and the laity. With a view to discourage frivolous and vexatious suits, he proposed to require the parties commencing the litigation to give security, and he would also empower the Judge to fine the applicant who was cast in heavy costs. The noble Earl then moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clauses—

  "(a.) The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York may, but subject to the approval of Her Majesty to be signified under Her Sign Manual, appoint from time to time a barrister-at-law who has been in actual practice for ten years, or a person who is or has been a judge of one of the Superior Courts of Law or Equity, or of the Supreme Court of Justice, to be, during good behaviour, a judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury and York.

  "(b.) If the said archbishops shall not, within six months after the passing of this Act, or within six months after the occurrence of any vacancy in the office, appoint the said judge, Her Majesty may by Letters Patent appoint some person having the qualifications aforesaid to be such judge.

  "(c.) Such judge shall be ex officio an Ecclesiastical Commissioner for England.

  "(d.) (Sub-section as to other offices held by judge, to be proposed hereafter)

  "(e.) Every person appointed to be a judge under this Act shall be a member of the Church of England, and shall, before entering on his office, sign the declaration in Schedule (A.) to this Act; and if at at any time any such judge shall cease to be a member of the Church, his office shall thereupon be vacant.

  "(f.) Any salary or emoluments which such judge shall be entitled to receive from the said offices shall be paid over by him to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and all fees payable in respect of proceedings before the said judge under this Act shall also be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall pay to the said judge by equal quarterly payments such salary as shall be assigned by the Queen, by Order in Council, not exceeding the sum of four thousand pounds per annum.

  "(g.) This section shall come into operation immediately after the passing of this Act."

  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUEYwished to ask the noble Earl whether he attached any importance to the appointment of the Judge by the Archbishops, who might have strong opinions, and who might be liable to a certain amount of suspicion? He did not see
  956
  any reason for departing from the ordinary practice with respect to the appointment by the Crown of Judges of the Courts of Law.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, that in undertaking the Bill the Bishops did not contemplate litigation—in fact, they believed that if the law was made clear litigation would be unnecessary, and their noble and learned Friend (Lord Selborne) had caught their meaning in his Amendment, and proposed to give them more power than they asked for or were willing to wield; but the noble Earl would give the Bishops no discretion at all, and he therefore obliged the Bishops to vote against a proposition which could not promote peace. It was suggested that the Judge, who was gradually to assume all the offices of the Archbishops, should be appointed by the Crown—which he supposed meant the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor; but when it was said that Bishops would be partial, he must ask whether Bishops were the only persons who showed great animus on theological subjects? He had had reason to admire the knowledge and zeal of laymen, but he did not find them devoid of the passions of men when they were warmly interested. The Bishops would have their Chancellors; but the Archbishops would be quite in the hands of this great gentleman. But what would those 800 reverend gentlemen do who had said they would resist a purely secular Court? The High Church party would attach weight to a Court of Church origin; but they would not attach weight to a Court of lay origin; and was this a prejudice which could be entirely disregarded? The Judge was to travel like an Election Judge; but the cases were not analogous, for the Election Judge must hear the evidence of many witnesses who were on the spot, while two witnesses might prove the facts in a case under this Bill; and it would be cheaper to take them to the Court than to take the Court to them. He objected also to the arrangements for the payment of the salary of this new Judge. Formerly the salary of the Ecclesiastical Judge was £3,000 a-year, but in 1872 it was raised to £4,000. He supposed that as the price of everything else had risen the price of Judges must rise in like manner. This, therefore, would not be a reason for rejecting the proposition

  957
  for appointing a Provincial Judge. But if the payment was to be saddled on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he should advise them to keep the strong box locked and to lend nobody the key. He did not believe litigation in the future would be much greater than it had been in the past. In the Province of York there had been two or three cases of the kind which would come under this Bill in 10 or 12 years; there had not been many more in the Province of Canterbury; and it would be rather extravagant to pay £4,000 a-year for the trial of two cases a-year. When the mediation of the Bishops was to be superseded by this Court he did not value the boon.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, it was wise to adhere as much as possible to old principles. The Courts of the Archbishops were of great antiquity, and the Church was ready to submit to these Courts with the prescriptive authority they had as Ecclesiastical Courts; and he therefore advised the noble Earl not to deprive them of that character. While hesitating to support the clause, he was anxious that it should be as perfect as possible before they voted upon it. He understood it was provided by the Judicature Bill that no Judge of a Superior Court of Law should hold any ecclesiastical office.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that whether £4,000 a-year would be sufficient to procure a competent Judge or not, the main question was whence the payment was to come. Somebody must be provided who should be responsible for the salary, and he was bound to say that there was in his opinion no object to which the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission could be more properly devoted than to the payment of an ecclesiastical Judge. Nor was it a fair way to represent, as a most rev. Prelate had done, that this would be paying the Judge out of the funds of the local clergy. The funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were public funds, and could not be more appropriately applied than to the payment of a competent Judge. He believed no higher Church purpose could be attained than by making a proper provision for a Judge, and that it was fitting that in this instance the salary should be £4,000 a-year. But as he was to be a Provincial Judge it would be straining the point to
  958
  say that he should be appointed by the Crown. The appointment would very properly be placed in the hands of the most rev. Primates.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, his objection to the Bill as it stood was that while it provided a new mode of bringing the first steps of the suit, it retained the appeal to the Provincial Court of the Archbishop and also the appeal to Her Majesty in Council. This would not get rid of expense and delay. As to the question of who was to appoint the two Provincial Judge—he was to have cognizance of ecclesiastical causes referred to him by the Archbishops, and he thought, therefore, that the appointment would properly be lodged with them.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, their Lordships ought to consider whether such a Judge was wanted at all; and, if he were, whether the present was a fitting time for creating him. At the present time, there were two Judges for the two Provinces without any salaries—for the salary of the Dean of Arches was only £5 a-year. This state of things ought not to continue, if there was to be any Ecclesiastical Judicature at all. He thought it desirable to have one Judge for the two Provinces, and would not hesitate to vote in favour of his salary being provided out of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDobjected to the course of proceedings now proposed in reference to the prosecution of offenders against the provisions of the Bill. The original Bill was directed to the regulation of Public Worship; its authors had disclaimed the intention of giving a penal character to their measure. The new Bill was an Amendment, in fact, of the Clergy Discipline Act, and it ought, therefore, to extend to all criminal offences committed by Clerks in Holy Orders. In its present form, it would give some colour to the assertion frequently made, that slight errors in matters of ritual and ceremony were considered graver offences than acts of immorality or general neglect of duty. The Amendment would wholly abolish the Bishop's Court. He (the Bishop of Oxford) did not want to magnify his office; but it was an ancient and important office, and if by legislation Bishops were required to be deliverers of sentences prepared for them, some of the Bishops might object to be mere machines

  959
  in that way. To use a word of the day, they might "strike."
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he did not like either the Bill or the Amendment of the noble Earl; but he believed that Amendment, which was a simple one, would do as little harm to the clergy as it was possible to do to them under the Bill. As to the question of discretion, he hoped the noble Earl on further consideration would consent to leave discretion with the Bishop. He (the Marquess of Bath) asked that not in the interest of the Bishop, but for the protection of the clergy.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsupported the Amendment, as the best means of providing a really efficient tribunal.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought it extremely probable that, if the clauses were carried, the whole of the work under the Bill would fall to the Judge. It was only to be competent for the Bishop to hear a case when both parties agreed not to appeal, but it was most improbable that there would be any such agreement. The case would, therefore, go at once before the Judge, and he would send the result to the Bishop, who, as his humble servant, would pronounce judgment in accordance with it. This was a painful position to place the Bishop in; and it seemed to him that they were, in fact, appointing a Court of Appeal without having first satisfactorily provided a Court of First Instance.
  On Question, Whether to insert Clause (a.)? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 112; Not-Contents 13: Majority 99.
  Resolved in the Affirmative,

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Amherst, E.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bandon, E.

  Belmore, E.

  York, Archp.

  Bradford, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Manchester, D.

  Cathcart, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Bath, M.

  Devon, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Ducie, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Abergavenny, E.

  Granville, E.

  Airlie, E.

  Grey, E.

  960

  Harrowby, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Morley, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Morton, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Crewe, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Dinevor, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Waldegrave, E.

  Fitzwalter, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Foley, L

  Grinstead, L. (E. Enniskillen.)

  Cardwell, V.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Hampton, L.

  Hanmer, L.

  Cordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Halifax, V.

  Hatherley, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Lanerton, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Monson, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Bangor, Bp.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Exeter, Bp.

  Overstone, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Penzance, L. [Teller.]

  Hereford, Bp.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Plunket, L.

  London, Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Manchester, Bp.

  Robartes, L.

  Norwich, Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Ripon, Bp.

  Saltoun, L.

  Rochester, Bp.

  Selborne, L.

  St. Asaph, Bp.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Boston, L.

  Wenlock, L.

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

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bristol, M.

  Blachford, L.

  Denman, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  De La Warr, E.

  Nelson, E. [Teller.]

  Lyttelton, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Then, on Question, Clauses (b.), (c), (d.), (e.), (f.), (g.) agreed to, and inserted, in the Bill.
  Clause 8 (Representation by Archdeacon, rural dean, or parishioner).
  Moved, That the House be resumed; objected to; and Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn; An amendment

  961
  made; and House to be again in Committee on Monday next.

  WENLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the exception of the Borough of Wenlock from the category of Boroughs under the Elementary Education Act, 1870—Was presented by The Lord WENLOCK; read 1a. (No 84.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock, Bill To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.