Sitting of 5 June 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Municipal Franchise (Ireland) * [135].
First Reading—Land Titles and Transfer * [136]; Real Property Vendors and Purchasers* [137]; Real Property Limitation* [138].
Committed—Intoxicating Liquors [83]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates* [8].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) * [112], and passed.
Withdrawn.—Parliamentary Voters Registration (Ireland) * [72],

PARLIAMENT—ORDER—MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to give Notice of Motion in consequence of the advice which the Speaker had given him in private, and he was anxious, with the indulgence of the House, to explain what had taken place so that he might be quite sure he properly understood the position in which he was placed. The Order for the Second Reading of the Monastic and Conventual Institutions Bill stood over for Wednesday, the 10th, and on Friday, the 12th, he proposed to move, that it was expedient that Her Majesty's Government should introduce
1054
a Bill to appoint Commissioners to inquire into Monastic and Conventual Institutions. He had been informed that as long as the Order for the Second reading of the Bill stood anterior to the Notice of Motion, that either was correct; but that if he were to postpone the Order for the Second Beading until after the Notice standing in his name, his Notice would become irregular. Inasmuch as he believed there was very little prospect for him as a private Member to obtain an opportunity to bring forward his Bill, and understanding his position, he now gave Notice, that he intended to move, on the Order being read for the Second Beading, that it be discharged. The Bill stood for second reading on Wednesday next, and in order that he might proceed regularly with the Notice for Motion that stood in his name, and elicit the opinion of the House that it was expedient the Government should introduce a Bill upon the subject, he proposed to withdraw the Bill
MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, I may state that the practice of the House is this—If the House should order a Bill relating to a certain subject to be read a second time on a given day, it will not anticipate the discussion on the matter, which it has so ordered, by a Motion on the same subject. And, therefore, if the hon. Member postpones the second reading of the Bill to a later day than the Resolution of which he has given Notice, that Resolution could not be proceeded with.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES—LEGISLATION.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to give Notice that in case the Committee on the Intoxicating Liquors Bill should finish this evening, I shall on Monday next introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to Friendly Societies. If, however, the Intoxicating Liquors Bill does not pass through Committee to-night, I will bring in my Bill on Thursday, and I trust that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government may be able to give the subject precedence over the Orders of the Day, so that the Bill may be brought forward at half-past 4 o'clock.
ARMY—THE HAMPSHIRE MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BEACHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the men of the Hampshire Militia when called out for training at Winchester had to sleep two in one bed; and, if so, whether he will take means to prevent such a thing again occurring?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he was sorry to say—not so much to the regret of the men as of the authorities—that the fact had been accurately represented. The truth was that there was not room enough in the places where the men were billeted for each man to have a separate bed. He feared this was not the only place where a similar inconvenience had been felt, but the War Office would do what it could to remedy this state of things.

DOMINION OF CANADA—MERCANTILE MARINE ENSIGNS.—QUESTION.
MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If authority has been granted by Her Majesty (by Order in Council or otherwise) to the Government of the Dominion of Canada to use in the Mercantile Marine "Ensigns" other than those now used by vessels of the United Kingdom; if not, if he is aware that a vessel recently arrived in Havre belonging to the Dominion of Canada flying an "unknown ensign," said by the Commander to be that authorized by the Dominion Government?
MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, it is quite true that a vessel—and, as a matter of fact, I believe, several British vessels registered in the North American Provinces—recently arrived at Havre flying the Red Ensign with the badge of the Dominion of Canada emblazoned in the fly. This course, however, is not irregular, as the use of flags of that description by vessels registered in the Colonies has been duly authorized by Her Majesty's Government.

ARMY PURCHASE COMMISSIONERS—INDIAN ORDNANCE CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BATESasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken by the Army Purchase Commissioners for the settlement of claims of
  1056
  Officers of the late Indian Ordnance Corps, in respect of compensation for loss of the sale of their Commissions?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, when I first entered upon the office I now hold, the question respecting the settlement of the claims of the officers of the late India Ordnance Corps had been a long time under discussion, and I found that the Army Purchase Commissioners were not in a position to deal with it, in consequence of the difficulties which had arisen between the India Office and the War Office. I thought it very desirable that the matter should, if possible, be brought to a conclusion, and therefore I proposed to my noble Friend at the India Office (the Marquess of Salisbury) that the matter should be referred to a distinguished ex-Judge, Sir Samuel Martin. The Papers were accordingly placed before him, and within a day or two Sir Samuel Martin has given his decision. It will be necessary that a short Bill should be brought in to enable the Army Purchase Commissioners to deal with that question upon the principles laid down by Sir Samuel Martin.

POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board, Ireland, have annulled the election of a Poor Law Guardian in consequence of the conduct in relation to it of a gentleman holding the Commission of the Peace; whether his conduct has been brought under the consideration of the Commissioners of the Great Seal; whether they have taken any action in the case, and what; and what is the name of the union and electoral division and of the magistrate in question?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, that the election of a Guardian for Crossmolina, north electoral division of Ballina Union was disputed. The name of the magistrate in question was Mr. G. H. Jackson, of Fortlands, Ballina. The Local Government Board had annulled the election, and ordered a new one, on the ground that a majority of valid votes had not been obtained, Mr. Jackson having filled up and signed a proportion of the voting papers in the absence of the voter, It

  1057
  was stated in the newspapers that Mr. Jackson's conduct had been brought under the notice of the Commissioners of the Great Seal; but he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had no information on this subject beyond what had appeared in the newspapers.

POOR LAW—EMIGRATION OF CHILDREN TO CANADA.—QUESTION.
MR. A. PEELasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering the large number of children sent out to Canada by the Poor Law Guardians of various unions, it is the intention of the Government to exercise any inspection over the temporary homes or refuges provided for such children, both in this Country and in Canada; and generally into the system adopted in the latter Country, whereby the children are placed out in different trades and employments?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, it is the intention of the Government to make inquiry into the results which have attended this particular form of emigration, which, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, has attained large proportions within the last three years. The subject has engaged much of my attention for some weeks, and the arrangements are on the verge of completion. In the course of a few days I shall be happy to inform my hon. Friend exactly what is proposed to be done.

IRELAND—SALARIES OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Chairmen of Counties and Officers of the Constabulary have received back pay from the date of a Report of the Commissioners recommending the increase of salary which they have lately obtained; whether he will consent to introduce a Clause into the "Magistrates (Ireland) Bill" authorizing the payment to the magistrates of back pay from the date of the late Report of the Commissioners recommending an increase of the salary of resident magistrates; whether the house allowance will be made to resident magistrates; and, whether such allowance was not granted to them until the year 1836?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, it was true that the chairmen of counties in Ireland had received back pay as set forth in the Question of the hon. Member, for the reason that increased duties were placed upon them by the Land Act of 1870. The amount of increased allowances to which the chairmen were entitled for such additional duty was not fixed by the Treasury until 1873; but, of course, they had been paid from the date at which the increased duty commenced. The increased rate of pay to be granted to the officers of the Constabulary was agreed to by the Treasury for special reasons, at a date anterior to the passing of the Constabulary Act of last Session. It was not his intention to introduce into the Magistrates (Ireland) Bill a clause such as was contemplated by the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question. His reasons for that determination he had already explained. House allowances were made to resident magistrates in Ireland before 1836; but since that time the position of the magistrates in regard to salary and other matters had been so much improved, and would be so much further improved by the Bill now before Parliament, that it was not thought right to restore to them house allowances which were made under totally different circumstances.

POST OFFICE—ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY'S CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BATESasked the Postmaster General, If there is any truth in the rumour, that, by the new Contract lately entered into and arranged by the late Government with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company (but which Contract has not yet been confirmed by the House of Commons), the Company are not bound to call at Plymouth on the homeward voyage as heretofore, for the purpose of delivering the mails, and by which arrangement those mails were delivered in the north at least one day earlier than if they were carried on to Southampton?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that under the new contract the mail steamers would not be obliged to call at Plymouth, The new contract was arranged by his Predecessor in office, and would carry out

  1059
  the Postal Service at a diminished cost to the country, and as the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were only hound to call at Southampton they had intimated that they did not intend to touch at Plymouth, in consequence of the additional expense to which it would put them.
  MR. BATESgave Notice that, in consequence of the reply of the noble Lord, he should on an early day call attention to the matter, and move that the House do not confirm the Contract entered into with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.

ARMY—THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF THE ORDNANCE.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Times" newspaper, that, at a late Conservative banquet at Chelmsford, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance stated, speaking of the Army, that—
"The legacy left by the Liberal party was simply appalling, whether they looked at the recruiting, the brigade depôt centres, or the Reserves," and that "he was sure that his Right Honourable Friend at the head of the War Office would not countenance 'dummy' regiments or 'phantom' reserves, but would take care that if, unfortunately, the Army should be required to serve in the field, it should exist not on paper only, but in substantial reality;"
and, whether he concurs in the statements made by the noble Lord; and, if so, whether he will be good enough to state what measures he proposes to introduce in Parliament with a view of remedying such a state of things?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I might, perhaps, appeal to you, Sir, to know whether the hon. and gallant Member has made a proper use of the power to ask Questions in this House, by asking for my opinions upon words used by one of my Colleagues outside this House. My noble Friend by whom the words are said to have been used is in his place, and is in a position to answer for himself, and to vindicate the words he has used or may use on any occasion. With respect to what he is reported to have said about myself, I shall make no remarks; but in respect to the language he imputed to me, I can only say that it is practically a repetition of what I have myself spoken in this House—namely, that my duty and wish would be to have a real Army, so far as I
1060
could bring it about. With respect to the latter part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I can only say that when it is my intention to take the House into counsel, or to ask for its assistance upon any question, I shall do so after due Notice, and on an occasion when there may be a full discussion upon the question raised. I shall certainly not do this when an hon. Member thinks proper, in a manner which fills me with surprise, to call upon me for a statement at a time when there can be no discussion and no means of testing the accuracy of what I might say.

ARMY—REGIMENTAL BANDS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the Band of Her Majesty's 50th Regiment of Infantry headed the Conservative procession into the town of Chelmsford on the occasion of a Conservative gathering in that town during the Whitsuntide Recess; and, if he will state to the House, whether such departure from the Regulations, forbidding the Military taking part in political demonstrations, was sanctioned by him, or by any subordinate officer in Her Majesty's Service; and, if he has sanctioned the attendance of Military Bands on such occasions, whether he will state to the House what Bands, if any, of Her Majesty's Regiments quartered at home are available for similar demonstrations on the part of the Liberal party?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I very much regret, Sir, to find that the Band of the 50th Regiment was employed on the occasion referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and I will tell the House how it came about. In March of this year the commanding officer of the regiment was applied to for the use of the band on the occasion of a festival at Chelmsford. He at once gave his permission, and had not the slightest idea that there was anything political connected with the proceeding. When the band went to Chelmsford it found itself at the head of a great procession of carriages, and began to march without playing any tunes. The bandmaster was called upon for some music, and the band then played one or two marches, thus taking part in the procession. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman

1061
cannot suppose that any application was made to the Secretary for "War on the matter, and therefore he cannot suppose that there was any sanction of the proceeding by me. With regard to the last sentence of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, the Liberal Party and the hon. and gallant Gentleman—who in the course of his political progresses has shown considerable skill in that direction—must find and blow his own trumpet.

ARMY—THE ASHANTEE EXPEDITION—WAR MEDALS.—QUESTON.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for War, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give a clasp with the medal for service on the Gold Coast to those officers and men who were in engagements with the Ashantees after the late war broke out, and before the arrival of the European Forces on the Coast; and, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend the conferring of the Victoria Cross upon Sir Francis Festing for distinguished gallantry in the field?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend, I will read the General Order which has been issued in reference to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question—
"The Queen has been graciously pleased to signify her pleasure that a Silver Medal he granted to all Her Majesty's Forces who have been employed on the Gold Coast during the operations against the King of Ashantee, with a clasp in the case of those who were present at Amoaful and the actions between that place and Coomassic (including the capture of the capital), and of those who, during the five days of those actions, were engaged on the north of the Prah in maintaining and protecting the communications of the main Army."
With respect to the second part of the Question, no recommendation has been brought before the Commander-in-Chief with respect to Sir Francis Festing, and therefore no such step as my hon. Friend suggests will be taken.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT: The Answer we have just heard being in no way satisfactory, I shall on an early day call the attention of the House to the subject, and move a Resolution.

ARMY—MILITIA BARRACKS AT WORCESTER.—QUESTION.
MR. CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for War, When the Militia Barracks at Worcester will be finished; and, whether the Militia Barracks at Hereford will hereafter be required for the purposes of the county regiment?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, the Militia Barracks at Worcester would probably be finished in two years. There was no intention in the meanwhile to interfere with the present arrangements.

WAYS AND MEANS—ALLOWANCES FOR POLICE LUNATICS, AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOUSEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When, and in what way does he propose to carry out the promised allowance for police, lunatics, and to local authorities?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the allowances mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member would have to be provided by Votes to be brought forward in Committee of Supply and in Supplementary Estimates which would be forthcoming as soon as the sum necessary had been ascertained. That would probably be in the month of July.

PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, that, after the startling statement of the Prime Minister that there were still seven Bills of great importance to be brought forward in the present Session, he should, on Monday next, ask his right hon. Friend as to the course he intends to take with regard to Public Business.
PARLIAMENT—THE GALWAY WRIT.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. CONOLLYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Limerick, Whether, in pursuance of his Notice, he intends to move that a New Writ be issued for the Borough of Galway in the room of Mr. Francis Hugh O'Donnell, whose election has been determined to be void?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)asked the hon. Member for Limerick to postpone his Motion on the subject until the evidence taken before the Judge at the trial of the Election Petition, which had been laid upon the Table in manuscript, was printed, and hon. Members had had an opportunity of seeing it. No doubt, there was a strong expression of opinion in the Judgment; but, without the evidence, it would be impossible to consider whether any grounds existed for issuing or withholding the "Writ.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he would willingly postpone his Motion on this subject; but trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do his best to get the evidence printed, and placed in the hands of hon. Members at the earliest possible moment.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that, taking it for granted that all hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper for that evening meant to follow the course which had been adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), he begged, on the part of the Government, to thank those hon. Members for their courtesy. He would move that the Order for going into Supply be postponed until Monday, so that they might at once proceed with the Committee on the Licensing Bill.
Motion agreed to.
Committee deferred till Monday next.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL. [BILL 83.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin Ibbetson, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 2 (Hours of closing public-houses).
Amendment again proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the word "ten," in order to insert the word "nine."—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone)
Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
MR. MELLYsaid, he had given Notice of an Amendment on the clause, the object of which was, that in towns with a population under 2,500, in districts of the most rural character, the hour of closing public-houses on Sunday nights should be 9 instead of 10; but there was another proposal on the Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) which he preferred, and which, for several reasons, Her Majesty's Government might accept, one of them being that the noble Lord who was now Postmaster General (Lord John Manners) brought forward a similar Motion in 1872, and argued it with considerable ability. It was to the effect that, on Sunday evenings in rural districts public-houses should not be re-opened until 7 o'clock, instead of at 6 as the Bill proposed, so that they might be closed at the time people were proceeding to Divine Worship. If the proposition were approved by the Government, that 7 should be the hour of opening and 10 the hour of closing, he would save the time of the Committee by withdrawing his Amendment, and thus obviate the necessity for proceeding to a division on it. That proposition, he knew, would best meet the wishes of the rural gentry, of the clergy and ministers of all denominations, and of a very large majority of the trade who objected to Sunday labour as much as any other class.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should most decidedly oppose the Amendment of which the hon. Member for Stoke had given Notice; but he promised that when the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire came under discussion, he would listen attentively to what was said about the matter, and give his opinion to the Committee upon the subject.
MR. MELLYconsented, after the division which took place the previous night, to withdraw his Amendment, and leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire. In so doing, he believed he would be consulting the convenience of the Committee.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that with all due deference to the hon. Member for Stoke, he must decidedly

1065
object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, at all events until they heard from the hon. Baronet the Member for North "Wiltshire some explanation as to what his Amendment really meant, and the course it was intended to pursue upon the subject.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, his Amendment was, that on Sundays public-houses should be closed from 3 o'clock until 7, instead of from 3 o'clock until 6, as proposed by the Bill, and that they should be open from 7 to 10, instead of 6 to 9. He did not like to have public-houses and the church-doors open at the same time. The Committee would see that if his proposition were carried, the hours during which the houses would be allowed to remain open would be precisely the same as proposed by the Government measure—three hours during the evening, the only difference being that the time would be 7 to 10 instead of 6 to 9. He hoped the Committee would see the matter in the same light as he did, and assist in that view—namely, the prevention of public-houses being open at the same time as the church-doors were open, and the bells chiming for Divine Service. He might be told that public-houses always had been open hitherto at 6 o'clock; but the Committee must remember that the present Bill was introduced avowedly to remedy the evils of the existing Act, and the existing state of things, and he hoped we should go forward in the good cause. He respected the licensed victuallers as a body, and many of them had stated to him that they would be glad if the public-houses were closed altogether on Sundays, therefore he hoped the Committee would assist him in the proposition he should have to make, and here he would refer hon. Members to the Petitions which had been presented to the House on the subject of that Bill. He found by the Votes that there were two pages and a half of Petitions recorded against the Bill in its present form, and only one page in its favour, and when they saw that, and the quantity of letters which had been received in reference to the Bill, he thought the Committee would only be fairly representing public feeling, if they let the people have a quiet Sunday evening in the rural districts rather than to open public-houses at the same time that the church-doors were open for Divine Service.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that after what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, he must persist in taking the sense of the Committee upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke. Having first fixed the closing hour, they would then be able to decide what time public-houses should be opened.
MR. GREENEdid not think that was the most convenient time to discuss the matter, and he would point out that evening service in rural parishes was a very rare occurrence. "When the time arrived, he should move that the hours should be from 5 to 9 o'clock on Sundays, which he thought would meet the convenience of all classes.
MR. BEACHdiffered from the hon. Member who had last spoken. He could not agree with him that evening service in the country was a rare occurrence; in fact, it had now become very prevalent. The services were held in adjoining parishes at different hours, thus affording greater opportunities for people to attend. He would shorten the hours of keeping open public-houses on Sundays as much as possible; because if they gave those who were weary the opportunity of slaking their thirst, there was no reason why they should unnecessarily prolong the hours and give others the opportunity of remaining drinking in the houses. He should, therefore, vote for both the Amendments of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) and that of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson).
MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend if he went to a division. That was not a question of affording facilities for recruiting strength after a hard day's work, and in his opinion Sunday drinking or "boozing" was a bad thing. He was satisfied that 9 o'clock was quite late enough in rural districts, where, as a rule, people went to bed early.
MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he not only protested emphatically against the statement and the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member for Denbighshire, but he, for one, should be sorry if it were taken out-of-doors that Parliament imagined that every person who went into a public-house on a Sunday evening went there to drink or to "booze." In the North of England it was by no means the custom, and he should be

1067
sorry if it was believed to be so anywhere.
COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEconsidered that already labouring people had a strong ground of complaint. It was a very hard case that they should have to wait an hour and a half after the afternoon service before they could obtain beer. The service was usually over about 4.30, and the public-houses were not open until 6. Many of the labouring class lived some distance from the village, and they complained that they had to stay and loiter about all that time in the village before they could provide themselves with beer to take home with them for their supper. It might be said that they could obtain it the previous night; but that was not a convenient plan, and he hoped the Government would be able to provide some remedy to meet the case he had alluded to.
MR. WILSONsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that several important towns had already adopted 9 o'clock as the closing hour on Sundays. That had been the ease in the largest and third largest seaport towns, and it occurred to him that if the larger towns were satisfied with early closing, it was idle to say that in other places later hours were required.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, although he had voted yesterday in favour of the hour of 10 as against 9 for the towns, he could not help thinking that the question of shutting up public-houses on Sundays in the agricultural districts at certain hours was a different thing entirely from the practice in towns. It had succeeded very well in large towns and cities, but what its effect would be in the country must be decided by the personal knowledge of hon. Gentlemen themselves. He knew it would be an advantage to shorten the hours in his own locality on Sundays, and the Committee should boar in mind that on other days the time of closing was earlier in the country than it was in the towns. Under those circumstances, he should vote for the 9 o'clock closing as proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke.
COLONEL JERVISthought it impossible that the Bill could work in its present form, since it contained this curious anomaly, to which he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentle-
1068
man the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that in one parish public-houses were to close at 9 o'clock, whilst in another parish, in many cases, they might stay open until 10. That circumstance gave a great deal of trouble, as men could walk from one parish to another—sometimes there was only a short distance between public-houses in distinct parishes—and get liquor an hour after being turned out of a public-house in the adjoining parish. When Mr. Bruce brought forward his Bill, it was not intended that there should be any distinction made between agricultural and town districts. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman thought it impossible to draw any distinction which would work, as large villages and towns were so close together in this country. He (Colonel Jervis) very much doubted whether there were any such things as purely agricultural districts to be met with in England—the towns and villages lying so close together.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENreminded the Committee that people in the rural districts generally went out for a walk on a Sunday afternoon, and it would be a great hardship if all the public-houses were closed at an hour which would prevent them having some beer on their return. He hoped therefore the Government would stand to their guns, and persevere in keeping the hours as they were specified in the clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 198; Noes 182: Majority 16.
LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON, in proposing as an Amendment, in page 2, sub-section 3, line 9, to leave out "six," and insert "five," as the hour of opening in the country, said, the question was a very simple one. In the country districts it was still, he was happy to say, the practice for the labourers to do a good day's work. They commenced their labour at 6 o'clock in the morning, and as they often lived long distances from their work, they often had to leave home at 4.30 or 5 o'clock. They were in the habit of taking their dinners with them, and unless they were able to buy some beer before 6 o'clock, the result was, that they had to go without, as they could not obtain any during the day. For-

1069
merly their children might have been seen carrying their meals to those hardworking men, but now, thanks to the operation of the Education Act, those children were more profitably employed in the elementary schools, and could not, therefore, any longer take any beer to them for their dinner, so that the men were absolutely debarred from obtaining the needful refreshment they required. It was no doubt the wish of Parliament to limit as much as possible the opportunities given to men to get drunk; but at the same time the House was bound—and he thought it was the object of the Bill—to give them every reasonable opportunity of obtaining that which in this case was not a luxury, but an absolute necessity of life. He was afraid that if the working classes were debarred from the use of beer they would be tempted to resort to spirits, for they were more able to keep a bottle of spirits in their houses than to get a cask of beer. He remembered that in Dr. Dalrymple's Committee appointed to inquire into the subject of insanity produced by drunkenness, some witnesses from the United States were examined who told them—"You have a great deal of drunkenness in England, and we have a great deal, too, in the United States; but yours merely arises from beer, while ours arises from spirits. So long as your population get drunk on beer only, you need feel no alarm; but Heaven preserve you from spirits!" They must take care, then, to do nothing by their legislation to induce the labouring classes to resort to spirits, instead of the national beverage of beer. In conclusion, he would move his Amendment, and as he thought it a very reasonable proposition, he trusted the Committee would accept it.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "five."—(Lord Claud John Hamilton.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
MR. BASSETTsupported the Amendment. The 5 o'clock opening had been adopted in the borough which he had the honour to represent, without any disadvantage having arisen from it. The local magistrates were perfectly content with it.
MR. FOTHERGILLlikewise supported the Amendment. It was, he said,
1070
simply folly to try and prevent the working classes obtaining that refreshment which they required. Those who took that course actually did not know anything of what they were speaking about. They would legislate for men as they thought they ought to be, but not for men as they actually existed. He had great experience of the working men throughout the country, especially in the colliery districts. Thousands of the men who worked in his colliery district (Merthyr) had to be at their work at 6 o'clock, and it was useless to open public-houses when there was no one to go into them. His experience was that there was very little morning drinking. He was not like many amiable and benevolent Gentlemen who did not know what they were talking about, and spoke of an ideal working man. He knew their work, and never heard of large bodies of them sitting in public-houses and drinking in the morning. A public-house in the morning was the most dreary place in the world to sit in. Of course, there might be exceptions; but, as a rule, working men did not sit there. He expressed the opinion that beer drinking was not so prejudicial as some persons imagined; and whilst he considered public-house beer the vilest stuff imaginable, yet the men liked it, and unfortunately the worse it was the better they liked it. But the men did not suffer so much from beer drinking as they did from spirit drinking. For his own part, he hated public-houses; but he lived amongst a manufacturing population, and he knew their wants; he considered that Parliament should legislate for their needs, and not to please particular fancies. He said, let them not lay down hard-and-fast rules which would drive men to spirit drinking. He was in favour of public-houses opening at 5 o'clock in the morning.
MR. ONSLOW, in opposing the Amendment, said, the argument of the noble Lord its Mover implied that the Education Act was meant to give greater facilities for drinking. He hoped he should give a reasonable vote on the matter, and one which would be for the welfare of the working classes; but he thought it would not be well for the working classes that public-houses should be opened at 5 o'clock in the morning. He thought that beer drinking was not good for men at that hour, and that tea

1071
or coffee would do them much more good. In the borough which he represented (Guildford), where there was a quasi-rural population, two tea and coffee shops had been opened for the convenience of labourers, and they were answering very well. He did not see why the experiment might not be tried elsewhere with equally good results, for men could work quite as hard on coffee, or tea, at that hour in the morning, as on beer.
MR. HAYTERexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, the effect of which would not in any way encourage drinking amongst agricultural labourers.
MR. GREENEsaid, that although the Amendment did not affect his constituency, as he understood that it was not to apply to places containing less than 2,500 inhabitants, yet he should support it. He thought that it would be a great boon to the labouring classes. The labourers wanted their beer before they went to their work, and he believed that if they were allowed to have it, it would tend to sobriety. If they were unable to take their beer before they left home, they would club together when they were at work, and send for beer, and thereby drink more than they would if they could get it before they left their homes. Although he did not represent a county, he represented a large place, and he was quite convinced that what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Fothergill) was quite right. He thought that if those who wanted refreshment were to confine themselves to beer, no great damage would be done; but it was the spirits, and not the beer, that did so much mischief. He had heard of a place of amusement having a notice which said—
"My friends, walk in here:
Nothing does excel the music but the beer."
He thought that beer was necessary for the labouring classes, and he should therefore vote for the noble Lord's Amendment.
MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he was very sorry to differ from the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. Fothergill). He thought, however, he knew as much upon that subject as the hon. Member for Merthyr. Having had experience as a working man, a farmer, a railway contractor, and a colliery proprietor, he could say that working men
1072
did not require the public-houses open at 5 o'clock in the morning. He had been a working man himself, and not only that, but an employer of labour as well. The workmen of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Fothergill) did not go to their work before 7 o'clock in the morning, and they could get their beer from the public-houses, if they required it, at 6 o'clock. It had been said that the men would stay drinking in the public-houses until 11 o'clock at night, and would get up again at 5 o'clock in the morning in order to recommence drinking. Now, if the working men were going to stop drinking until 1 at night, and if they were going to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to drink beer again, he would like to know when they were going to sleep? He was sure six hours was not enough for a working man's sleep. If he was going to do his employer justice, he must have seven and a-half hours' sleep at least. That was his experience as a working man. He was proud to say that he had been a working man himself, and he spoke from a working man's point of view; and it was not common sense to hold otherwise than that that rest was too short. There was another thing that his experience taught him, and that was that if the public-houses were open the men would go in before they went to their work, and get drunk before they reached their work, and some would not go to work until the day after. That was his experience in many instances. He would stick up for the working man as much as anyone; but when that extension was asked for him, he must say that he thought it was not needed. Was it common sense to ask the publican to open at 5 o'clock in the morning in these days of short hours all round? He thought not. He must congratulate the Government on the shape the Bill was taking, and he cordially thanked them for it. He must say that he did not much like the look of it at first; but it seemed to have got round to common sense at last. He presented 45 Petitions yesterday against the Bill. He had received, he might say, baskets full in favour of amending the Bill as it was; but, with the exception of what had been done by the last vote, the Bill was in the right direction, and what the country desired.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they had the whole argument on that subject

1073
over last night. It was precisely the same argument. His experience of his own part of the country (Lancashire) was that it was the labouring man's wife or child who took his dinner to him when at work, consequently his glass of beer—which he hoped he would always have—would be much fresher if taken to him by his wife, than if he himself obtained it at an early hour in the morning, and carried it with him to his work; and he hardly thought that the opening of public-houses at 5 o'clock in the morning was needed. He would like to remind the Committee that the House last night decided against precisely the same question by a majority of 382 against 52. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, he begged to remind the Committee that there was a good deal of difference between the question referred to, as decided last night and that now under discussion. In the county which he had the honour to represent there was an almost unanimous opinion against late hours at night, and in favour of an early opening in the morning in rural districts, and he thought that the wish for it was a fair one. Whatever might be said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Davies) as to the working classes not requiring it in mineral districts, where men worked short hours and drank champagne, the hon. Member would find that in agricultural counties, the work commenced very early; at certain periods of the year, especially in harvest time, the work began at a very early period of the day, and the labourers were compelled to take their beer with them for the day on their way to their work. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman refused to make this concession, which he maintained was different from that rejected by the Committee on the previous evening, and he hoped, therefore, the noble Lord (Lord Claud John Hamilton) would take the sense of the Committee upon the Motion.
MR. STARKIEsaid, it seemed to him that every hon. Member's opinion upon this Bill had been arrived at more or less hurriedly; and if in a short time they had an opportunity of going down into the country and addressing their constituents, they would find a difference of feeling as to what had transpired
1074
in that House. With regard to this particular Amendment before the House, he thought the noble Lord who moved it (Lord Claud John Hamilton) had some principle to guide him. With respect to the hour of 5 o'clock—which was the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord—instead of 6 o'clock, he saw that he had some principle, because the Committee had heard what had been said upon the requirements of the agricultural labourers wanting their beer before they commenced their early work. Now, he could understand the case of the agricultural labourer, and he would vote for that; but the hour of 6 he did not understand, because it was neither one thing nor another. He should very much like to see the hour of 7 inserted in the Bill instead of 6, because he was speaking for a large population, which was almost entirely a colliery population. Their employers did not want them to have drink before they went to their work. It was, no doubt, true that when the working classes had been enjoying themselves a little over night, the next morning they were very much inclined to take "a hair of the dog that bit them," and then, instead of going to work, they stopped boozing about for another day. He could answer for the district to which he belonged that they never heard a single word of grumbling when the magistrates altered the hours to 7 in the morning and 11 in the evening. He must say that he should very much like to see that universal hour of 7 o'clock adopted thoughout the whole country, except in the metropolis of London. He had merely addressed those few remarks to the House, because when he had an opportunity of meeting his constituents, he could tell them what he really thought was the best for the country, and could tell them that he asserted his opinion in that House. He should certainly not vote with the noble Lord, because he should vote for 6 o'clock, for it was nearer his (Mr. Starkie's) hour than the noble Lord's.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that the argument of the Home Secretary really did not meet the question. A great number of the wives of working men could not bring their meals to them on account of the distance and other engagements at home; and he feared that the result of adopting 6 as the hour would be that, in many cases—

1075
since beer drawn over-night would not be good, and they were debarred from getting fresh in the morning—men would substitute for beer, spirits, which would not deteriorate by being put in their bottles over-night.
MR. WELBYbelieved that to open the public-houses at 5 o'clock in the agricultural districts would be a concession to hard-working men which would lead to no evil results.
GENERAL SHUTEsaid, he only wished to say that the Hove bench of magistrates upon which he had the honour of sitting had fixed the hour for opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock for the last two years, with the greatest possible advantage. There was a great deal of building going on at the extreme west of Brighton, and a vast proportion of workmen who went there, had a distance of one, two, or three miles to walk. He could assure the House that there had not been the slightest objection to the hour of 5. On the contrary, it had been of the greatest possible advantage to the labourers, and had not in any way increased drunkenness. He founded this statement not merely on his own knowledge as a magistrate, but during the late Whitsun Holidays he had made special enquiries of the Hove police, who one and all endorsed this opinion. If the Amendment was adopted, he was quite sure that the concession would be followed by no evil results whatever. He did not ask it for the class of men who had been spoken of by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Davies); but he asked it for a class of men who went out to work early in the morning, and who did want that concession.
MR. STORERthought it exceedingly hard that the labouring classes should have an hour cut off each end of the time in which they could got refreshments. He thought the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Davies) must be an eccentric lot. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Guildford that coffee was as good as beer, and he thought that if the hon. Member would poll his agricultural constituents they would toll him another and a different story.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: What I said the other night was that, a case having been made out, I would prepare a clause for the agricultural labourers giving the magistrates special power to
1076
grant exceptional licences at harvest time. I have had a clause drawn up with that object which I will submit to the House, so that the agricultural labourer shall have time to get his beer during the harvest. This provision will, I think, meet the case of the agricultural labourers.
COLONEL JERVISsaid, there was one question he should like to ask of the Home Secretary—What was to become of the fishing population? They did not get 7½ hours sleep, but sometimes only two or three. Did the Committee suppose it possible for the wives or daughters of the fishermen to take them their beer? With the fishing population it was not a question of 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock, but it was a question whether the men who went fishing should have fresh beer or stale beer.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, that in certain parts of the country the magistrates had taken the hour of 5 o'clock. That was, he believed, the hour that was generally fixed in the agricultural districts. Why should not the hours which had been fixed in the different parts of the country by the magistrates be adopted in the Bill? Those hours had been fixed by the different benches of magistrates to the perfect satisfaction of their neighbourhoods. The hours would then be fixed by Act of Parliament, and they would carry out the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary by doing so.
LORD CLAUD JOHN HAMILTONsaid, he was sorry that the Home Secretary felt that he could not accept his Amendment. He thought that it was a matter that ought to be settled by a vote of the House. As to leaving the magistrates to fix the hour, what chance would there be of a bench of magistrates composed of men holding the views of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thought fit to base his refusal to accept the Amendment on his experience of Lancashire. Lancashire, as they all knew, was a manufacturing county, and the people had not to go the same distance to work as they had in agricultural counties. The wives of the labourers in Lancashire might be able to carry the beer to their husbands, but in the Eastern Counties that was impossible. The time of the women in the

1077
Eastern Counties was mainly engrossed in adding to the population, and they could not expect a woman to go to her husband with a baby under one arm and a bottle of beer under the other. After the opinions expressed by so many hon. Members in favour of his Amendment, he must trouble the Committee to divided.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had not understood the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) to recommend that the hour of opening should be left to the discretion of the magistrates, but that the Committee should adopt the hours which they had found convenient. It appeared that in agricultural districts the hour of 5 had been generally adopted.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 319; Noes 94: Majority 225.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I propose to accept the Amendment placed on the Paper, to leave out "eleven" and insert "ten" in line 11 of the clause. That will carry out the understanding which the Committee has arrived at already with regard to the closing hours.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper in reference to closing in rural districts containing imputations not exceeding 2,500 inhabitants, and he should like to lay before the Committee his reasons for the proposition he wished to make. He thought that the hours of closing should be 10 o'clock from the 29th of September to the 25th of March, and 11 o'clock from the 25th of March to the 29th September. His constituents in South Warwickshire were quite capable of understanding the Bill of his right hon. Friend, notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member who had last spoken. They objected to the magistrates having a discretionary power with reference to the hours of closing, to an inquisitorial power being placed in the hands of the police, and to the public-houses and beer-houses being on a different footing; and hence it was they approved of the Bill before the House. He was glad to find that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Davies), who was so well acquainted with the working classes in that part of the country, was also perfectly satisfied with the Bill. He certainly preferred
1078
the practical views and knowledge of the hon. Member for Cardigan to the philosophical and abstract views of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. The Home Secretary having agreed to uniformity of hours for closing public-houses and beer-houses rendered it unnecessary that he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) should refer to that subject; but what he did hope was that, as that difficulty had been removed, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the time of closing in the rural districts being 11 o'clock in summer and 10 in winter. In the winter months the agricultural labourer returned home at 5 o'clock or earlier, and before 10 the agricultural villages were, in most cases, literally asleep. It was a great expense to a publican to keep his house open in a rural district till 10 o'clock, having to burn candles or gas and keep up fires, with, perhaps one solitary individual sitting in the chimney corner smoking his pipe, with a pint of beer. He saw no reason why the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman should not be carried out as regarded the winter months, but thought 10 o'clock was too soon to close in the summer, as the labourers often worked till 9 or 9.30. As the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Wykeham Martin) had told them, the men worked at the allotments in the months of June and July, when the days were long, and 10 was too early an hour to close in those months. The labourer not only had his allotments, but sometimes took a little recreation in the shape of cricket, and it would be hard if he could not get a little refreshment after his day's work or play had ended.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONrose to a point of Order. He wished to ask what Question was before the House? The Home Secretary had proposed that 10 o'clock should be the hour of closing in rural districts, and the hon. Baronet seemed not to be speaking to that question, but to a subsequent Amendment which stood in his name.
THE CHAIRMAN: The question is, That the word "eleven" should stand part of the clause; and I apprehend the hon. Baronet is addressing himself to that part of the Question.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, the point he was considering was, whether the hour of closing in rural districts should be 10 or 11, and therefore ho

1079
thought he had been strictly in Order. After what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would not move his Amendment.
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper, that in all rural districts the houses should close at 10 o'clock every night in the week. There was, however, a little practical difficulty in places where the population exceeded 2,500. In the county which he had the honour to represent (West Kent), there were, owing to peculiar circumstances, districts of precisely the same character as regarded the character of population; but in some cases the number happened to be above 2,500, whilst in others it was far below. The numbers of the population did not afford a perfect criterion as to the best way of regulating the hours. He thought, therefore, that some better definition of what rural districts were to be considered to consist of was required, and would suggest that in addition to "rural districts" the words "which are not towns" should be inserted in the clause. That would more clearly show where the 10 o'clock rule was to apply. He hoped the matter would be considered upon the Report.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSunderstood the desire of the Committee was, that in all cases where the beer-houses closed at 10 o'clock, the public-houses should close at the same time, and that that was confined to rural districts.
MR. J. G. TALBOTthought that that would not be quite satisfactory. Populations of precisely the same character and with the same requirements would not be placed on an equal footing, as the district which exceeded the limit, although adjoining one that was below it, would come under a different rule, and be later than the adjoining one which was below the limit. The Bill dealt with three classes of population—the metropolis, the towns, and the rural districts having each a distinct hour.
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINagreed with the hon. Member for West Kent that some alteration was required in the proposal before them. He instanced the case of adjoining parishes, the houses in which would close at different hours, as the population of one of them exceeded the limit laid down. The public-houses would close in one parish at 10, and
1080
another house, perhaps half-a-dozen yards away, would keep open till 11. The system of allotment referred to by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was carried out to perfection by the agricultural labourers in the district he represented. The agricultural labourers were very much attached to those allotments, and the system had a good effect upon them. They remained at work in the present season so late as a quarter or half-past 9 o'clock, and as the allotments were purposely placed at a distance from the public-houses, the men could not get there in time to have a glass of beer to quench their thirst if the law directed the closing hour to be 10 o'clock. As a rule, the men were by no means given to drunkenness. Since last evening he had endeavoured to calculate the number of people he had seen intoxicated from the 1st of January to the present time (June 5), including the first night during which he was engaged in canvassing a district of 220,000 during a period of election excitement. They did not exceed five, two being together during the Whitsuntide holidays and three at contested elections.
MR. GREGORYthought the hon. Members for West Kent and Rochester could hardly contemplate the difficulty there would be if the Government were to define each rural district. The fact was, there could be no better test than population, and they could not legislate for exceptional cases.
Amendment agreed to. "eleven" struck out;"ten" inserted.
MR. SANDFORD, in moving an Amendment, to the effect that on Sunday afternoons public-houses wherever situate should remain closed from 3 to 5 o'clock, instead as the Bill proposed from 3 to 6, said, he should, in the first instance, propose the omission of the word "six." That was a subject on which his constituents felt strongly, as the closing at 5 o'clock would materially interfere with their comforts.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "five."—(Mr. Sandford.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: If the word "six" be struck out, then the Committee will have to consider how the blank is to be filled up, whether by the insertion of "five" or "seven." As a second Amendment appears on the Paper to extend the closed time on Sundays by an hour, by substituting "7" for "6," it would be, perhaps, as well, with a view to save time, to discuss the two Amendments together.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEconsidered that closing public-houses on the Sabbath from 5 to 7 o'clock would greatly incommode those who were known as Sunday excursionists. If the House desired to persevere in its action of putting down Sunday excursions, the better course would be to do it by direct rather than indirect means. Besides, the alteration of hour either as proposed by the Bill, or now contemplated by the Government, would act most injuriously on the owners of a number of well-conducted public-houses in the neighbourhood of large towns. If the hour of 7 were adopted, it was his belief that a large amount of spirits would be bought by excursionists and carried about with them, so that they could consume it between the hours of 6 and 7. He hoped the Home Secretary would, in considering this question, not overlook that view.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he should certainly urge upon the Government to adopt his Amendment, keeping public-houses closed from 3 to 7 o'clock; for when the word "six" was omitted it would practically become a question between 5 and 7. Three hours, from 7 to 10, it must be obvious to the Committee, were quite sufficient to let remain; but if 5 o'clock were the hour fixed, there would be given a spell of five hours' drinking. No person in that House, he thought, could stand up and say that five hours were required for any body of men to drink in public-houses on Sunday evenings. He was desirous that public-houses should be open so long as they were required for a reasonable accommodation of the public on Sundays, but no longer; and that was the view held by respectable licensed victuallers themselves, the large majority of whom felt that on the Sabbath they should have as many hours of rest from business as possible, and that they ought to be kept at home the smallest
1082
number of hours consistent with the convenience of the public. He had had a large number of Petitions from licensed victuallers requesting him to advocate the shortening of hours during which public-houses were to be kept open on Sundays, but he had not had one word said to him nor had he received a single Petition in favour of these houses being allowed to open at 6. There was a strong feeling in his district that the facilities for the sale of drink on the Sabbath should be diminished rather than increased.
COLONEL BARTTELOThoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the medium course, and make the reopening hour 6 o'clock. That hour would give the greatest satisfaction to the country at large.
MR. EVANSsaid, he would support the hon. Baronet's Amendment. He thought three hours for remaining open on Sunday nights was quite sufficient. As regarded Sunday excursionists, whose case the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea had pleaded, it was sufficient to say that they came under the bonâ fide traveller question.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he intended to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts; but wished to explain that he should be compelled in the first place to go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Maldon to vote for the elimination of the word "six."
MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that on this question the wants and requirements and the enjoyment of the publicans ought to be consulted. He believed that if they were polled from one end of the country to the other they would be found in favour of the opening hour on Sunday evenings being 7 o'clock.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) that he would run some risk in voting to strike out the word "six," as "five" might ultimately be substituted, and he would therefore recommend him to vote with the Government in favour of 6 o'clock.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he should be glad to know whether the Government were disposed to go farther. Perhaps the Home Secretary would inform the Committee what hour they were prepared to support.
MR. HUNT: Six o'clock.
COLONEL LEARMONTHsaid, he had had opportunities of seeing a great number of provincial people, and they had all of them expressed to him their desire that 5 should be the hour of opening. The churches were over at 4 o'clock, and it was felt as a great inconvenience that people should have to wait so long for their afternoon beer. For this reason he was anxious to have the hour fixed at 5.
MR. DODSONsaid, he should like to know what the wishes and the intentions of the Government were in the matter? He was himself prepared to accept 7. Undeterred by the alarm caused by the reply of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he should vote against 6 with a view of making it 7.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he certainly understood that the last vote was taken on the understanding that the Government would support 7. He himself was personally in favour of 7, but his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the House when he made that statement. Many hon. Gentlemen who voted for the extension to 10, did so on the understanding that the hour of opening would be 7.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not know why the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) should wish to make the opening hour 7 o'clock. Though himself in favour of 5, he thought the compromise contained in the first proposal of the Government was a course sufficiently satisfactory.
MR. DODSONobserved that he understood that the Government were going to vote for the omission of 6, with a view to the insertion of 7.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that that was what he intended; and he knew that on that ground many hon. Members sitting behind him voted with the Government in the last division.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENwanted to know whether the Government meant to leave this an open question, or to throw the whole weight of their influence into the scale?
MR. SANDFORDwished to know what course the Government were going to take? Were they going to vote for striking out 6?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.
MR. GREENEsaid, he presumed hon. Gentlemen would vote on that
1084
question as they thought fit. If 7 were made the hour instead of 6, he thought it would be one of the most unjust things that was ever done. He trusted the Committee would not do such a thing.
COLONEL SIR JAMES HOGGhoped that 6 would remain. If it were taken out, he should be driven to vote for 5.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, that as the Government had changed their tactics, he should change his, and he should therefore withdraw his Amendment for striking out six, if the Committee would allow him.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 216: Majority 148.
Question put, "That the word 'five' be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 211: Majority 173.
SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, that as the Committee had decided both against 5 o'clock and against 6 o'clock, he would now move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out "six," and insert "seven."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, speaking in the interest of the public rather than in that of the publicans, asked the Committee what they meant to drive the people to on Sundays? If they meant to drive them into church at 3 o'clock, would they keep them there until 7 o'clock?—he understood the hon. Baronet wanted to keep them there until 7 o'clock. [Sir GEORGE JENKINSON: No, no!] Why, it was well known that the people who went to church at 3 o'clock left it long before 7 o'clock came? He should like to know from the Home Secretary what effect the 7 o'clock proposal would have upon the Bill in respect to private drinking, and the bottle system about which he had given them such an earnest warning. It was true they might carry their Bill by large majorities; but he would remind them that the opinion of the House was not absolute in these matters. The Act of 1872 had been carried by much larger majorities than had voted that evening; but as it did not agree with the views of the public, it had now to be amended. In the same way that measure, instead of being a final settlement of the question, would have to be hereafter altered. If the

1085
right hon. Gentleman insisted on having 7 o'clock inserted in the clause it would produce much dissatisfaction, as an attempt to alter the habits of the people, who would not be driven to church by Act of Parliament.
COLONEL DYOTTsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford City, and had to express his extreme surprise at the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which was not only disappointing to the country, but likewise to their own party. He (Colonel Dyott) represented a cathedral city, and his constituents were perfectly satisfied with the Bill as originally drawn. It had been distinctly stated that they intended to abide by 6 o'clock, but nevertheless when the Question was put, they thought it their duty to go into the Lobby and vote against it. There was little more to be said, except that that vacillation would give them a shake from which they might not be able to recover, for although they had a majority now they might not always have it.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he recollected distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty assured the House that he would vote for 6 o'clock, and therefore it was to be supposed that the other Members of the Government would do likewise. It was not until the Secretary of State for the Home Department had put the matter right, that the Committee knew the Government had adopted the hour of 7. In his opinion, it was a sad thing that the Government should allow themselves to be led away by persons who had particular crotchets, or who, like the hon. Baronet, had strong religious feelings, and who thought that on that account they had a right to interfere with everyone else. If the hon. Baronet wished to go to church at 3 o'clock, there was not a single Member of the House who would deny him the pleasure of remaining there until after midnight, if he pleased, clothed in sackcloth and ashes. He (Mr. Locke) was always delighted when men had the opportunity of practising their religion freely and without restraint; but he would not bear with any man who would presume to interfere with him in his religious practices, nor could he allow him to dictate to him what he should drink and what he should eat, or of doing so whenever he liked.
1086
He was sorry to see the other side of the House going in for harassing legislation, indeed he was surprised to find that sort of legislation favoured by the other side. They had almost been extinguished by legislators of that kind in the last Parliament. Many of them had been got rid of, thank Heaven; but it was an awful thing to see the other side of the House following in their footsteps. He was also surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have changed his mind, and upset that of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty in consequence of the eloquence of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, which had induced him to adopt these hours. That eloquence had had no effect upon him (Mr. Locke), and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would disregard it. If he came to his senses, and got rid of harassing restrictions, the Bill would pass in a form acceptable to the country.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was true the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had made a concession; but his right hon. Friend had only done exactly what might have been expected from a man of his personal honour. That was not a party question. In the previous debate there had been a weighty expression of opinion in favour of an earlier hour, and the real question to be decided was not a party matter, but what was the best time. He could sympathize with the hon. Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke), who had probably consoled himself for being in Opposition, by the belief that he would be in a majority on questions of this kind. But this question was before the country at the last Election, and the result showed that the feeling of the country was in favour of the course which, in making this concession, the Government were now pursuing, and which alone could lead to a final settlement of the question.
MR. WATNEYsaid, that in 1872 the hours were fixed by a compromise, and the closing time was fixed at from 3 to 6 on Sunday afternoon, which was in point of fact, a reduction of one hour upon the time the houses were allowed to be open up to that period. It was now proposed to take off another hour, and he did not believe the working men would stand it. If men could not get refreshments in a regular way, they

1087
would get them by stealth—that was to say, they would travel a short distance and obtain liquor under the disguise of bonâ fide travellers, which would bring about most mischievous results.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should be sorry if any of his hon. Friends thought that the Government had disregarded their views; but when the question was under consideration as to whether the time of closing should be 9 or 10, he referred to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wilts, and suggested that the two questions should be discussed together. During that debate he heard no strong expression of opinion in opposition to the proposal, and on the division a large proportion of hon. Members who usually supported the Government voted against them. Having on that occasion stated that the proposition would meet with acceptance at the hands of the Government, he was sure no one would suppose that the promise could be retracted.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENrecalled to the Committee what had really happened. Upon the question of closing at 9 instead of 10 being debated, the Home Secretary had called attention to an Amendment about to be proposed, the object of which was to close from 3 till 7 instead of from 3 till 6, and had wished both subjects to be argued together, saying that he thought a stronger case could be made for that Amendment than for the 9 o'clock closing—that was, for taking off an hour at the beginning rather than at the end of the evening. But he had not promised to support that Amendment, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had heard with considerable satisfaction the First Lord of the Admiralty, who had not been aware of the previous speech of the Home Secretary, saying that 6 o'clock was the best hour. If the Committee should divide, he would go into the lobby against "seven" being inserted in the Bill. He believed that the Government were going now to impose another unnecessary restriction, and he felt confident that if they persisted in this course, they would incur the risk of running counter to the feelings of the great mass of the population, though they might please for a certain time a number of gentlemen who were opposed to all drinking.
MR. LAIRDthanked the Government for accepting the Amendment; and said that in Birkenhead they had tried the hours of 6 to 9, and the result was, they were convinced that 7 to 10 would be the more suitable hours.
MR. FIELDENexpressed his surprise that the Government should favour such a proposal. That question had never once been referred to during the late General Election, in fact, no one for a moment supposed that there would be any attempt to shorten the hours on Sunday evenings. He ventured to say that if it had been for a moment imagined that the Government would favour a proposal to keep the houses closed on Sunday evenings until 7 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would not have occupied the position they now did upon the Treasury bench. The Committee would remember that some years ago Colonel Wilson-Patten proposed to curtail the hours; but such a strong public feeling was raised against it that a Select Committee had to be appointed, which reported against the restriction, and it was abandoned, otherwise he (Mr. Fielden) believed great disturbances would have taken place. He had no doubt whatever that disturbances would occur now if that proposal were adopted. If the Government were determined to carry these restrictions upon the social habits of the people, let them set an example and begin at the top. Why did they not close the clubs, and why should not the bar of the House of Commons be closed at 11 o'clock? If they did that, he should believe they were realty in earnest; but until they did so, he, and, no doubt, working men also, would look upon their professions as mere hypocrisy, and as tending to deprive the working classes of that which they looked upon as being good for them, while the wealthy were allowed to do as they pleased.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that no specific Amendment relating to the point had been placed by any hon. Member on the Notice Paper, and that, therefore, it could scarcely be adequately discussed at that moment. He should, however, take care, if the clause were agreed to, carefully to consider the matter before the Report, when there might be a full discussion upon it.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEbelieved that in all the country districts

1089
—and he referred more particularly to Wiltshire—there was a general feeling in favour of the Amendment, and therefore he should give it his support.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, the Government could not have pursued any other course than that which they had taken, and that it was the working men themselves who asked that further restrictions should be imposed. He thought the hours proposed would be to the advantage both of the country and the trade, and thanked the Government for adopting them.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that when Lord Aberdare had brought in his Bill, he (Mr. Goldsmid) had voted against all restrictive proceedings; but the present measure was even more restrictive than that introduced by the late Home Secretary. He considered that the fairest thing which the Government could do would be to leave the hour a blank, and let the question be fully discussed on the Report.
MR. DODSONsaid, the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken could not be adopted, because there would then be a blank, and the clause would be left absolutely without meaning. Several hon. Members had spoken of the proposal before the Committee as a great and decided restriction; but, in fact, it was only the substitution of one hour for another—a later hour for an earlier—7 and 10 instead of 6 and 9.
MR. LOCKEconsidered the argument of his right hon. Friend who had just spoken as a most extraordinary one.
LORD FRANCIS HERVEYwished to know, whether the Government would consent to substitute 6 for 7 o'clock, when the question came to be reconsidered before the Report?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSconsidered that the best course to be adopted was for the Committee to consent to the insertion of the word "seven;" and the Government would fully consider the matter before the Report was brought up.
Amendment agreed to; the word "seven" inserted accordingly.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYrose to a point of Order. He had heard the cry of "No" repeated to the last moment.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he had announced his opinion that he thought
1090
the Ayes had it three times. It was challenged loudly the first time, but not so loudly the second time. After an interval he declared it again for the third time, and the decision was not then challenged.
MR. WATNEYsaid, he had challenged the hon. Gentleman's decision, and thought the Committee were about proceeding to a division.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that if that was the case, the cause was that a number of hon. Members tried to drown the "Noes," by shouts of "Agreed, agreed."
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he did not hear that the third announcement of the Chairman was challenged by hon. Members, and that in any case it was a mistake which would injure nobody, as Government had promised to give the question full re-consideration before the Report.
MR. FIELDENsaid, that on each occasion he had challenged the decision of the Chair.
MR. DODSONsaid, that he was near to the Chairman when he made the announcement for the third time that the "Ayes had it," and he certainly did not hear that announcement challenged. It would now be out of Order, however, to continue a discussion on the subject.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYthought that there would be a great deal of advantage in securing uniformity of time in reference to the working of the measure. And with a view to that object he would propose as an Amendment, in page 2, after line 14, to insert—"The hours above mentioned shall be reckoned according to the time kept at the Royal Observatory at Greenwich."
MR. GOLDSMIDasked, whether the hon. Baronet proposed that the public-houses should be connected with the Observatory at Greenwich in order to ensure their uniformity.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, there would be no occasion for that, as all the railways now were regulated by Greenwich time.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that for several reasons he should have liked to have adopted the Amendment; but he was afraid that most of the publicans, who were the parties concerned, had not the most remote idea of what Greenwich time was.
Amendment negatived.
On Motion of Mr. SECRETARY CROSS, Amendment made in page 2, lines 13, 15, and 20, by substituting the words "such premises" for the word "public-house."
MR. LAIRD, in moving, as an Amendment, to add at the end of the clause, as a separate paragraph, the following Proviso—
"Provided, That in such municipal boroughs or Improvement Act districts as contain a population of twenty thousand or upwards, houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail shall be kept closed on week days until seven o'clock in the morning,"
said, he had been a large employer of labour, and had taken considerable interest in the question. When he first commenced business he had from 100 to 200 men in his employ, and further on he had as many as 4,000 men working for him at once. He knew the difference between the opening of public-houses early in the morning and at 7 o'clock, and the result at which he had arrived was, that work was better done, and that the men were better in themselves, through the habit of some of them to drink in the morning not being gratified. He had personally consulted many working men on the subject, and they were one and all of opinion that it was better for public-houses not to open until 7 than at 6 o'clock. The question of keeping public-houses closed until 7 o'clock in the morning had also been exhaustively considered by working men at Birkenhead, and at three open-air meetings they had passed resolutions in favour of the hour of 7. The religious bodies in Birkenhead had also presented Petitions in favour of not opening licensed houses earlier, and so had the county, and stipendiary magistrates. The employers of labour were likewise greatly in favour of 7 o'clock, and no less than 800 working men in one establish-men at Birkenhead, unsolicited by their employers, had petitioned that House in favour of keeping public-houses closed until 7 o'clock. Sir Joseph Whitworth, who was well known to the House as a large employer of labour, had also expressed himself in strong terms in favour of keeping the public-houses closed until 7, and had said it was a great advantage to the working men, as well as to the employers, that that should be so. The same opinions were
1092
expressed in letters sent him from employers of labour in some of the principal towns in the country, including Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, and Liverpool—and in the latter town the steamboat owners and everyone were in favour of keeping the houses closed until the later hour. What he asked the Government to do was no experiment. It had been tried for two years, and had been successful, and those towns which had adopted the opening at 7 o'clock represented 1,600,000 people. He believed that everywhere it had been tried it had worked well, and he hoped the Government would give the Amendment the careful consideration its importance demanded. He had no doubt but that hon. Members—large employers of labour in various towns—would confirm the statements he had made to the House.
MR. WHEELHOUSEobjected that the question was not one for employers of labour and magistrates, but for the wage classes. They were the persons affected, and the Committee should know what their opinions were. For an inquiry of this kind these latter were the persons affected. Very probably neither one of the great employers quoted, nor a single individual among the magistrates mentioned, had ever had occasion to go, or even been in such house. If he wanted his breakfast and could not get it he might then be in a position to give an opinion, but he ventured to think it was of very little comparative consequence what were the views or opinions of Gentlemen who spoke from no practical experience, or ascertained want on this subject. Why was the Committee to change the hour of opening from 6 to 7 o'clock? He had certainly heard no sufficiently good reason for the change. In the district which he represented the wage classes went to work shortly after 6 in the morning, and he saw no valid reason why they should not have the opportunity of getting reasonable refreshment on their road to work.
MR. MACDONALDsaid, he rose to repudiate an observation made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, with reference to the desire of the working classes of this country for early drinking. The hon. Member referred to the opinions of certain large employers of labour; but he (Mr. Macdonald) ventured

1093
to think that he knew as much about the habits of the working men in the country as the hon. Member, and he said the working classes in this country were not addicted to early drinking, and he thought it his duty to vindicate them from the imputation that such was the case.
MR. GRENALLsaid, he was decidedly in favour of the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Laird). In the borough which he represented, public-houses were opened at 7 o'clock, and continued so until 11 o'clock at night, and that arrangement worked most satisfactorily.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he did not understand that the hon. Member for Birkenhead had made any such wholesale imputation upon the working classes as had been supposed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald); and, certainly, to his mind, the words used did not bear the construction put upon them by the hon. Member, nor justified the way in which they had been taken up. With respect to the proposal itself, he could say that the borough he represented had from the first, under the discretionary clauses of the existing Act, taken upon itself the power of fixing the hours of closing and opening, and they had found that the hour of 7 in the morning had worked most beneficially for all parties. In Hull, there were many men engaged in shipbuilding, at the docks, and in various manufactories; they included not only highly skilled artizans, but a large number of unskilled labourers; and the common experience of the large employers was that since they had fixed the hour at 7 they had been enabled to get their men together at 6 o'clock in the morning for a fair start for the day's work. Everything had gone on most satisfactorily alike for workmen and masters. On the contrary, when many of the houses were opened at 6 o'clock, the men were accustomed to drop into the public-houses to get what in his part of the country was called their "pint of early purl." That involved a loss of time both to themselves and their employers, and, unfortunately, some of the men became unfit for work for the day, or the greater part of it. In such large towns as Liverpool, Hull, Gateshead, and others, where the houses were closed until 7, those evils had been obviated; and he hoped that
1094
the Government and the House would allow the hours to remain at the point which had proved in practice so beneficial. He thought that he and others who had voted with the Government on other points had some claim upon them in this matter. He had himself voted for the hour of 11 at night, though he would personally have preferred the hour of 10.30. If they extended the hours to 11 at night and 6 in the morning, it would lead to the extension of an hour and a-half in the working day beyond the period for the sale of drink now permitted in his borough, and produce much dissatisfaction there.
MR. MACDONALD: I did not express any opinion whatever on the question of fixing the hour at 7 o'clock, but confined my remarks to a defence of the working classes against imputations which are wholly unfounded.
MR. NORWOODthought the hon. Member had shown a warmth uncalled for; but his object was to induce the Government to keep to the hours which the large boroughs he had named had fixed for themselves, and which had been followed by a marked absence of the irregularity which prevailed before the hour of opening was fixed at 7 o'clock.
LORD ESLINGTONsaid, that no man disliked unnecessary restrictive legislation more than he did, and he would never give his consent to any sudden and uncalled for inroads upon the social habits of the people of this country, as he believed that such legislation was mischievous, irritating, and certain to defeat its own object. But with regard to largo towns like Gateshead, about which so much had been heard, and about which he knew something, they had had ample experience to teach them that the Act of 1872 worked fairly well, and for the benefit of the classes affected by it. In that district the hour of 7 for opening had been adopted, and he thought it should be adopted in all populous districts; because if they could check early dram drinking they would effect a great good. Statistics which were not disputed, showed that in some of the great seats of industry, the early attendance of the men at their work, especially on Monday mornings, was much steadier and better than it was when earlier hours of opening were in force. The people of this country objected to change; but when changes

1095
were once effected, it was astonishing how soon they got accustomed to them. He should vote in favour of the proposition to open at 7 o'clock.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead raised an important question, and one which ought to be considered by the Committee, and dealt with. Four or five of the largest towns, including Liverpool, Birkenhead, and Gateshead, accepting the option given them under the Act of 1872, had adopted the hour of 7 for opening, and the hour so chosen by the inhabitants, through the magistrates, had given almost universal satisfaction. Were, they, then, to deprive those towns of the advantages which they had received from the adoption of 7 o'clock? It was proposed to schedule these towns, of which there were 55, and to make 7 the statutory hour at which they were to open; and although there were many objections to that course, still he preferred it to forcing those towns to open at an earlier hour. He questioned whether the House had done wisely in taking from the local authorities the power of fixing the time of opening and closing. If the opinion of the House should be against the working of the local option, he should support the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) which would schedule those towns which had adopted hours different from those provided in the Bill.
MR. STEVENSONsaid, he was in favour of 7, and would support any proposal for maintaining that hour in towns where it had been adopted. In Gateshead and the adjoining country district the experience gained was, that they had obtained beneficial results from opening the houses at 7 o'clock. He was a licensing magistrate, for an adjacent district in Tyneside, and he was enabled to say that there was a great probability of their bench adopting at the next Brewster Sessions, the hour of 7 for opening; but if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead were not adopted, they should lose the advantages which they expected would result from the adoption of that course. The feeling in favour of local discretion was not to be measured by the number of cases in which it had been already exercised. He hoped that the power which they—the magistrates—had of causing the
1096
houses not to be opened before 7 in the morning, but which the Bill would take away, would be restored to them by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The working men would no doubt be with them in favour of such a regulation.
MR. TORR, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, said, the feeling in Birkenhead and in Liverpool was so strong in favour of opening public-houses at 7 o'clock, that numerous meetings of operatives, as well as of magistrates and others, had been held in those two large towns to express that opinion; and as an indication of it, he might state to the Committee that he had received no less than 30 telegrams that day from employers of labour on the subject. He would read one of those telegrams, received from a large shipbuilding firm in Liverpool. It was as follows:—"We hope the Government will be induced to make the opening hour of public-houses 7, and not 6 o'clock. We employ 800 men, and we know the evil result of one glass before commencing work." This opening hour was a most important question, affecting the interests of both employers and their workmen, and that was the way in which the matter was looked at by every employer of labour in Liverpool. He was much astonished to hear the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), with reference to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird). There was, probably, not a larger employer of labour, when in business, in that House than the hon. Member for Birkenhead, or one who, for 40 years, had shown greater kindness, or extended more sympathy to those whom he employed. What his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead had stated was, that there were a certain number of public-houses opposite the works of large firms, and that the men on going to their work at 6 o'clock would go in and have a morning glass. In order to show that that was no fallacy, and to point out the annoyance which was occasioned by it, he might be allowed to mention a fact in connection with the subject. One of the large shipbuilding firms in Liverpool set a watchman to take the statistics as to the number of men who frequented these public-houses, and they found that

1097
150 of their men visited these houses in the early morning when they were opened at 6 o'clock; but when the public-houses were opened at 7 o'clock, the men, instead of being tempted, went on with their work; and the firm to which he had alluded found that only two of their men were found in the public-house. The point had been mooted, whether the masters and men were agreed on this question of 7 o'clock opening. One of the firms which had telegraphed to him had, before mating the communication, told their men that they intended doing so, and asked each man to put down the figure 6 or 7 before his name to indicate his choice. That was done, and out of 1,000 men, 800 put the figure 7 against their names; and let him remind the House that this was done without any pressure or indication from their employers as to the hour they should accept. Now, he had reason to know that the employers and workmen in many other of the great firms were thoroughly unanimous in their desire to have the public-houses opened at 7 o'clock; and surely that House ought not to interfere between the employers and their workmen in a desire which tended so greatly to the benefit of both classes. All that was asked by Liverpool and Birkenhead was to be let alone. What was the course which the Government adopted when dealing with the matter two years ago? They said—"We will not take upon ourselves the responsibility of fixing the hours;" and why did they not fix the hour? Because they found towns varied so much—the wants of the population and the habits of the people varied so much, that they thought it better to let the licensing magistrates fix the hour in each town. The Government gave a limit—namely, that the hours should not be earlier than 5, or later than 7. This action of the magistrates had been practically tested for two years, and now the House threatened to interfere. What was the result? Why, that one of its Members received in one day 30 telegrams from large employers of labour, requesting that the existing hour might be continued. The telegrams which he held in his hand represented more than 200 firms, employing between 30,000 and 40,000 working men, chiefly first-class artizans, and forming no small portion
1098
of the entire working class of Liverpool. It would manifestly be an injustice to one of the great centres of industry to alter the hour of opening, which had worked so well and given such general satisfaction for the purpose of carrying out what was alleged to be the system of uniformity. If there was to be uniformity both of opening and closing throughout the Kingdom, there might be some weight in the argument; but uniformity did not exist. In one case, the closing hour was to be 12.30; in another, 11; others 10; and, on Sunday, various hours were adopted. He had much pleasure in seconding the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see their way to sanction that which masters and men alike desired, and which they asked the Committee not to change.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead a very important one, and I shall give it my support. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Torr) has placed before the Committee very fully and clearly the circumstances of the case; but, at the same time, I think he has not fairly represented the position in which the Act of 1872 left the magistrates. That Act did not impose upon them the duty of fixing the hours of opening, but made a very strong suggestion as to what it should be, giving them the power of altering it within certain limits. The Act strongly suggested 6 to 10; but I am of opinion that the Committee will not come to the conclusion that there is a very strong feeling in favour of those, hours. The case which has been made out in favour of 7 o'clock is a very strong one, where that proposal has already been adopted; leading us therefore to believe that it would be advantageous to have the same hour in other towns, because there is nothing especial in the circumstances of Liverpool or Birkenhead which removes them from the ordinary run of large towns. In my opinion it would be unfair that those towns which have adopted 7 alone should have the benefit of closing until 7 o'clock, and that other places should not have the advantage of the experience which has been gained by them. We are told that the working of the late hour of 7 o'clock in these large towns has been

1099
remarkably favourable; and I am quite sure, from what I have gathered in the course of this discussion of the opinion of the Committee, that both masters and men are at one upon the point. I think therefore we may take heart of grace from the beneficial working of the 7 o'clock hour in these towns, and I trust that the Government will seriously consider whether they cannot adhere to that hour. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead had no idea of making any attack upon the working classes; and I must be allowed to say, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), that I think no hon. Member has a right to say he speaks on behalf of so large a body as the working classes. There can be no doubt that large numbers of that body exhibit as much self-denial under temptation as any other class. No doubt some of them give way to temptation, and it is a condition of the class of legislation now before us, that we have to consider both the small minority as well as the enormous majority. I believe that while the majority are in favour of the opening hours being fixed at 7 o'clock, good would thereby be done to the minority, and I trust, therefore, the Government will adopt the proposal.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas not surprised at hon. Members speaking in favour of a local and exceptional arrangement when it had been found to work satisfactorily, and he could sympathize with them when an arrangement was likely to be adopted destroying it; but the question was one which must be considered in a broad way. The list of towns where the 7 o'clock opening had been adopted was a small one, not more than 10 out of the whole number of the towns, while the towns, the constituencies of which exceeded 20,000, were an enormous number. The question was, should there be pressed on them that which had been found to work advantageously in a few places; and he thought the same answer applied as when discussing the hours of closing, they gave way to the wishes of the majority of the towns. The matter could not be met in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. If the hon. Gentleman, however, had any other proposal to make in the same direction, and would place its terms on the Notice Paper, the Government would
1100
be prepared to give it every consideration.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that he had hitherto on all occasions voted in favour of shortening the hours for the sale of liquor; but on that occasion he must vote in the opposite direction. In Sheffield the hours for remaining open had been fixed from 6 to 11 o'clock, and the arrangement worked in the most satisfactory manner. There was a special reason why, as regarded Sheffield, the hour of opening should not be altered from 6 o'clock to 7. In most of the factories there the work was carried on by two shifts of artizans. One shift got home at 6 o'clock in the morning, at what they called their supper hour, and dined at 12—midnight—when they commenced work. Well, if the public-houses were not to open until 7 o'clock, those men could not, after the night's severe toil, have their glass of beer, and that would be hard indeed upon them, when they had often been heard to say that a glass of beer was worth a shilling at that hour in the morning. If they limited so much the hours during which refreshments were to be obtained, they would raise such a spirit against the Act in the large towns as to render it unworkable.
MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead on this Amendment. It was true that Liverpool and Hull had adopted the hon. Member's principle; but could it be said that that was a reason why the House should adopt it in towns with about 20,000 inhabitants, who might probably object to it? A great number of very considerable towns would be affected by the change, and, as he thought, very disadvantageously. He protested against the doctrine that the House had to take into consideration the view of the employers of labour only. That might be as it was represented to be; but how did they know what were the views of the employed? Two years had elapsed since the passing of the Bill, and the magistrates had not made the proposed change; yet who could doubt that it would have been made had it been completely and clearly consonant with the general public feeling? Besides that, they had numerical tests enough in the Bill already, and he did not wish to see them multiplied. They had in the Bill already 10,000, 2,500,

1101
and now it was proposed that they should have 20,000. He retained the opinion which he expressed on the question in 1872, of uniformity in the hours of closing; but he was not going to discuss it now, as the Committee had declared itself in favour of 11 o'clock as the closing hour for towns above 2,500, and of 10 for towns below it. He regretted the decision thus come to. The hours of opening had nothing to do with drunkenness, though the hours of closing might. ["Oh, oh!"] He defied anyone to say that the opening of a public-house at 6 instead of 7 tended to increase drunkenness. He should vote against the Amendment.
MR. BIRLEY, in supporting the Amendment, alluded to the discomforts which would arise to the publicans themselves in the event the hours of business were lengthened. He was of opinion that the publicans themselves, as well as the public, should be somewhat considered in this matter. There was a general concurrence throughout the country, as shown by public meetings, Petitions, and meetings of magistrates, in favour of shortening the hours during which public-houses and beerhouses were to be kept open, and it was also shown that a large number of publicans were in favour of the shorter hours, all they asked for being fair play towards all. If the hours were shortened, also, families of working men would be in better circumstances than if the men were exposed to the demoralization which went on at these places. It was to him very extraordinary that when there existed such a feeling in the Legislature and throughout the country for shortening the hours of labour—next week a Bill would come before the House for shortening the hours of labour in factories—Parliament should be in favour of lengthening the hours for publicans and their employés. The Motion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead was not open to the objection regarding clubs, as clubs did not open at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and the Committee might therefore freely accept the Amendment on that score. He admitted that on this question there existed differences of opinion. In the city he had the honour to represent there were differences, and some people would probably suffer by the change; but it was clear that in these matters for the general good there
1102
must be a sacrifice made somewhere. No doubt, that at Sheffield and similar towns where the double shift system was carried on, some inconvenience would at first be felt; but there could be no doubt that people would soon adapt themselves to circumstances. He hoped that the principle of shorter hours would be adopted, even in the interest of the publicans themselves.
MR. CAWLEYsaid, he objected to any hard-and-fast line. He disagreed with the hon. Member for Newark with respect to his view of the two years' experience of the Act of 1872, and he was satisfied that if it had had a longer trial the hour of 7 for opening on week days would have been much more extensively adopted. The result was, so far, encouraging, and he had no doubt that 7 would have been the hour eventually adopted in towns under the Act of 1872. The hon. Member for Liverpool wished to stereotype what had been done within the last two years, but that was not right or just. They should leave a certain discretion with the magistrates of every locality to adopt or change the hours of opening from 5 to 7 in the morning as they thought proper.
MR. T. E. SMITHsaid, that being inclined to favour greater elasticity in legislation on this subject than many hon. Gentlemen seemed willing to adopt, he thought the present question was one which required hon. Members to be perfectly acquainted with the circumstances connected with the towns and cities of the Kingdom. It was a very complicated question, and most difficult to be got out of. It was only last night that a great majority of the House voted against any extension of time beyond 6 o'clock in the country; but it was generally understood that if a hard-and-fast line were drawn, they would be inflicting an inconvenience on vast numbers of the people of this country. He thought, therefore, that local feelings and requirements should be consulted, as suggested by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Cawley). But in the great Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead there was no grievance at all, for a working man could get any beer he wanted for his dinner, or any other meal; but surely he did not require it at 6 o'clock in the morning. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
MR. BULWERsaid, he had never heard anything more insulting to the working men of the country than the language used by many hon. Gentlemen in the course of that debate. They were, by the Bill, confessedly legislating for a minority of the people; but in doing so they imposed every restriction they possibly could on the majority. It was announced out-of-doors, on many platforms, and in many electioneering addresses from hon. Gentlemen opposite lately, that the working men were the very incarnation of all the virtues, and possessed complete political intelligence—'So much, in fact, that the late Prime Minister had invited them, at a moment's notice, to give their opinion upon a financial scheme, involving the abolition of the income tax, coupled with an equitable re-adjustment of taxation. But in that House they were treated as children and fools, in whose path they dare not leave the door of a single public-house open, lest they should ruin themselves and their families. That was a gross calumny, and for his own part he thought better of the working men, and was of opinion that the fewer the restrictions they had the more desirable it was. It was not fair to impose on the great majority of people who did not get drunk the annoyance and inconvenience of these restrictions. He would remind the Committee that formerly it was the habit of the class to which hon. Members of that House belonged to indulge freely in their cups; but that practice had now happily ceased—thanks, not to restrictive Acts of Parliament, but to progress in civilization, if not in morality; and so would the alleged intemperance of a minority of the working classes. If they could not safely at present do away with all restrictions, let them be made as light and as elastic as possible.
MR. SAMUDAsaid, they were now in a different position from that of 1872. Then they passed a Bill regulating the hours of opening and closing public-houses, but leaving to the magistrates a discretion to decide upon them according to local circumstances. Now, however, it was totally different. They proposed by the Bill to fix the hour by law, and to relieve the magistrates from all responsibility. Then came the question as to what that hour should be which would suit the majority in a neighbourhood or a locality, and let the minority
1104
be bound by it. For his own part he had so strong an opinion for lessening the hours of drinking that he was inclined to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead; but in consequence of the extremely serious evils it would inflict on an unoffending majority, he came to the resolution to give it every opposition in his power. They were now dealing with a restricted monopoly—the publicans—and it was necessary for them to compel that restricted monopoly to yield that amount of accommodation which was required by the majority of the public.
MR. LAIRD: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that the Government might perhaps, with my assistance, be enabled to draw a clause to meet the difficulty. There has been a great objection to the clause as it stands at present. What we want is to be left alone as far as towns containing large populations which have adopted 7 o'clock are concerned, such as Birkenhead. I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, and I will endeavour between now and when the Report is brought up, to communicate with the Home Secretary as to whether we can agree upon a clause to meet the case. Under these circumstances it will not be advantageous to proceed further with the Amendment.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope before the Question is put from the Chair that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) will understand that the Government do not see their way to framing any such clause to meet the case.
Question, "That the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn," put, and negatived.
ADMIRAL ELLIOTsaid, he had not spoken during the debate. He had only a few words to say. He was not one of those who had at any time mistaken Her Majesty's Government as to the course they would pursue, because he understood from the first from the Home Secretary, that as regarded the hours of opening and closing to be inserted in the Bill, the question was to be an open question. He was quite prepared, therefore, under these circumstances, to find himself in one Lobby with some of Her Majesty's Ministers, whilst others went to vote in the other Lobby. "With respect to opening the public-houses at 7 o'clock, he should—representing as he

1105
did a large working class constituency—vote for opening the public-houses at 5 o'clock. He thought that Her Majesty's Government, who were large employers of labour, ought to show some consideration to their employés. There were some 18,000 men employed in the Government Dockyards, and those men had to be in the Dockyards at 6 o'clock in the morning. If the public-houses were not opened, and the men enabled to get some refreshment before they went to their work, they had to go to the Dockyards and had no refreshment until 12 o'clock in the day. He said if they did not allow the public-houses to be opened before 7 o'clock, they debarred these men from obtaining that refreshment in the morning, which he believed was necessary for them in order to do that work which they had to perform. He denied they could make men either sober or religious by Act of Parliament. On the contrary, his experience led him to believe that indulgence conduced more to sobriety than restrictions did, and that where going to Divine Worship was left optional with men they were the more ready to attend it. Many of the speeches which he had heard that night in that House on the subject would never have been made on the hustings in the face of working men, and he considered that many of the remarks which had been made were most insulting to the working-men of the country and most undeserved.
Amendment negatived.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 (Hours of closing wine-houses, beer-houses, and other houses (not public-houses) for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as the provisions as to hours contained in the clause, had been embodied in the preceding clause which had just been agreed to, he should move the omission of the one under notice.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the clause be omitted from the Bill."—(Mr. Secretary Cross.)
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, before that Motion was put he wished to say a few words, although they were not against the withdrawal of the clause. He considered that the Committee had made a very great mistake in doing
1106
away with the discretionary power of the local bench of magistrates.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause omitted from the Bill.
Clause 4 (Exemptions as to theatres repealed).
MR. MELLYsaid, he wished to ask the Home Secretary, whether it would not be wise to put some words in the clause as to the exempted houses; so as to make sure that the exemptions should cease on the passing of the Act? Would it not be wise to insert words of this description in the Act?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I will consider that question.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, what exemptions existed under the present Act?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the 26th and 27th sections of the principal Act. The sections are too long to read now; but the hon. and learned Gentleman will there find a list of the existing exemptions.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he did not think that that was quite an answer to his question. What he wished to know was what exemptions existed then?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I repeat, the hon. and learned Gentleman will find them in the sections of the Act which I have mentioned.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Power to vary on Sunday afternoon hours of closing premises for sale of intoxicating liquors).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had received a letter from a gentleman connected with the town of Liverpool, which stated that there was some difficulty in applying the measure to that town, as it would in some degree clash with a local Act. The clause provided that some of the houses might open at 12.30 instead of 1 o'clock, in order that the people should get beer for their dinner; but the gentleman stated in his letter that that would be impossible under the local Act. Therefore, in order to avoid that difficulty, he proposed to insert the words at the beginning of the clause—"Notwithstanding anything in this or any local Act contained."
Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
On Question, That the Clause, as amended, be agreed to.
MR. CHARLEYmoved, in lines 21 and 22, to leave out "when situate in any place beyond the metropolitan district."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the object of the clause was to enable houses situated in districts where the hours of Divine "Worship varied, to be closed or opened according to public requirements. That variation was not required in the metropolis, and the convenience of the public would be promoted in other places.
MR. CHARLEYsaid, that being so, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CHARLEYmoved, in line 28, after "o'clock," to insert—
"(b.) That such premises shall he closed in the afternoon from half-past six till eight o' clock, and in that case such premises shall remain closed only until half-past four in the afternoon."
The object of his Amendment was to enable the magistrates to deal with the evening as well as the afternoon service.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was sorry to have to object to that Amendment also.
Amendment negatived.
MR. MELLYmoved, in line 28, to leave out the word "six," in order to insert the word "seven."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that the question was to be decided on the bringing up of the Report; but he had no objection, subject to that condition, to the word being inserted.
Amendment agreed to; word substituted accordingly.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 (Early-closing licences).
MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved the insertion of words in line 40, the object of which was to give the applicant for a licence, who was desirous of closing his house at an earlier hour of the night than usual, the option of opening "later in the morning."
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman might withdraw the Amendment, or put it in a more modified form, as it looked as if it were proposed in the interests of the publicans, and not in the interests of the public. He did not at all object to
1108
the clause, as it was one that he thought might work very well; but if they adopted the proposed Amendment, they evidently placed in the hands of the magistrates the power of saying to a person who came before them for a licence—"You shall have a licence, provided you take the shorter licence." Thereby they placed the option in the hands of the magistrates, instead of in the hands of the publican. And what would be the result? There were many large towns—such as Manchester, Sal-ford, Liverpool, and others—where such an option might be worked so as seriously to interfere with the public convenience.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied that the provision was in accordance with the principle of the existing Act, by which persons who chose to apply for six-day licences were entitled to have them at a lower rate than that paid for seven-day licences.
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that applied only to Sundays, but this clause referred to week-day licences.
MR. MELLYsaid, he did not object to the clause; on the contrary, he thought it was a very good one. But where would be the advantage of the Amendment if it enabled the magistrates, when application was made for these licences for closing at an earlier hour at night, or opening at a later hour in the morning, to grant licences which, instead of fixing the hard-and-fast line which was desired, caused houses to be kept open in the same district at different hours? In fact, the option would practically be placed in the hands of the magistrates, and they would have the same difference in the hours as had caused such general complaints.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he wanted to know where the words of the right hon. Gentleman would come in?
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether the publican would pay a less sum for his licence if he opened an hour later in the morning; and did his right hon. Friend mean it to be a remission of duty in the case of opening an hour later or closing an hour earlier, or both?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Not twice over. A Sunday closing licence gets a remission, or opening an hour later gets a remission; but you cannot get two remissions.
MR. MELLYsaid, the publican could get two remissions, each of one-seventh, if he not only closed on Sundays but opened an hour later on week days.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Look at Clause 7, and you will see. I will, however, take care that the clause shall be altered when I bring it up on Report.
MR. MELLY: Would it not be better not to insert Amendments at all, but to take them on Report?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Very well; I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 (Remission of duty in case of six-day and early-closing licences).
SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, that the amount of duty which would be remitted to persons taking out early-closing licences would vary from one halfpenny to three-halfpence per day, and he thought therefore that the provision was perfectly useless, as there were few men who would not prefer to keep their houses open to saving one halfpenny per day.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he was of a different opinion, and would like to see a still wider option given to publicans as to the hours of keeping their houses open. It would be a great advantage to public morality if a fair allowance in the cost of the licence was made on short-hour licences, and if that system was encouraged, he believed it would effect a great deal of good.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 (Penalty for infringing Act as to hours of closing).
MR. NAGHTEN, as an Amendment, moved in page 4, line 34, to leave out the words "although purchased before the hours of closing," and at the end, to add—
"Provided always, That in all cases under this Act where any person shall have entered licensed premises before the hours for closing-mentioned in this Act, he shall be entitled to remain in such licensed premises for the purpose of consuming any liquors that he may have purchased before the hour of closing for any reasonable time not exceeding a quarter of au hour."
MR. WATNEYsaid, that publicans were bound to serve their customers up to the last minute of closing their houses; and whether the Committee accepted the Amendment or not, it would be necessary
1110
to have it understood whether liquors could be consumed after 12.30; because, if not, the publican would have to leave off serving a few minutes before closing time.
MR. ASSHETONargued that the Amendment would have the effect, if carried, of adding a quarter-of-an-hour to the time of closing. It was desirable for them to see precisely what they were doing. The Home Secretary had pleaded, as an excuse for putting on the extra half-hour in London, that public-houses were virtually open 20 minutes beyond the time specified in the Act of 1872, the metropolitan magistrates having decided that a reasonable time should be given for the consumption of the liquors obtained before the hour of closing, and it was partly on this ground that the House accepted the hour of 12.30.
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, after the debate of Monday night, he had determined not to press an Amendment which he had put on the Paper to effect the object of this Amendment.
MR. MELLYlooked upon the clause as most valuable, for it got rid of all the questions whether the liquor found in the hands of the customer was bought five minutes before or five minutes after the closing hours. There was not a magistrate in England who would not find his hands strengthened by the clause as it stood.
COLONEL LEIGHthought this was a sort of case de minimis non curat lex. If a man ordered a glass of spirits or a pint of beer, how long would it take him to drink it, when told the place must be closed? About a minute and a-half. The discussion of the Amendment ought to take up no more time. He thought they might pass this clause sub silentio.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the only object he had in putting these words in the clause was really to carry out the intention of the Act of 1872, which he thought in this particular had been misread.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to know what effect those minutes of grace would have on other towns as well as London? Were those towns also to have their minutes of grace as well as London? Would the hon. Member for Carlisle offer any explanation on this subject, for the Bill, though nominally conducted by the Government, was really conducted by the Opposition benches?

1111
There was no doubt they had shortened the hours in the towns by half-an-hour, and had lengthened the hours in London by half-an-hour, and now proposed to give London a quarter of an hour's grace. They should not make the line so hard and sharp in determining the particular hour for the country towns, while they gave a quarter of an hour's grace to London. He would ask the Home Secretary, why he gave an additional half-hour to London and 15 or 20 minutes grace, while he cut off half-an-hour from the country towns? The country towns must feel very sharply the contrast between the terms proposed for them and for London. Oxford and other towns would feel that the price of the boon was the purchase of the satisfaction of the licensed victuallers of London. ["Oh, oh!"] That feeling was very strong throughout the country. The country towns were exasperated at the contrast between the treatment of them and London. They had taken off an hour in the country and had extended the time in London. He would now ask the Home Secretary, whether he intended to extend the same generosity to the country traders which was accorded to the people of London?
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was misrepresenting the country traders. The only thing they were anxious about was that there should be one closing time throughout the country districts, and he believed they would be quite willing to accept the hour of 11 as that time. If a man was found standing at the bar of a public-house with a glass of brandy before him which he had paid for, but not consumed, at 11.30, the case was brought before a magistrate, and the country trader would be placed in a difficulty. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) thought it bettor to leave this matter to the discretion of the magistrate, who would be bettor qualified to say whether there was an intentional violation of the law.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the original Bill provided that liquors were not to be served after a certain hour. The London magistrates had some doubts as to the moaning of the Act, and he would repeat he had put in a few words to correct an apparent ambiguity.
Amendment negatived.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEinquired what would be the position of a victualler who opened his house for the sale of other things than intoxicating liquors during the hours of closing? A good deal of tea and coffee was sold in public-houses, particularly in the markets.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that there was no clause to prohibit that mode of business.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 (Saving as to bonâ fide travellers and lodgers).
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYin moving, as an Amendment, in page 4, line 41, to leave out "to bonâ fide travellers or;" and in line 42, after "house," to insert—
"Or to bonâ fide travellers except between the hours of seven in the morning and one in the afternoon of Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday,"
said, he did not object to affording every convenience to a bonâ fide traveller to obtain liquor, provided it could be done without harm to the public. Persons, however, made use of the name bonâ fide travellers when they could not get drink at any other place than in the rural districts, and they started from their homes a couple of hours earlier than they could procure it in town. Under a false pretence they got into the public-houses, and they remained there the whole day, an annoyance not less to the inhabitants of the place than to the publicans themselves. Doing away with the bonâ fide traveller exemption altogether was, of course, out of the question; but what he asked the House was, that the publicans should not be called upon to open their houses and to destroy the advantage of the restrictions under this Act between the hours of 7 in the morning and I in the afternoon of Sundays, Christmas Day, and Good Friday. Bail-way travellers were always provided for in regard to refreshment. There might be some inconvenience caused to persons driving by road, but it would be small when compared with the advantages which were certain to arise if his Amendment were ratified by the House. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the words "to bonâ fide travellers or."—(Sir John Kennaway.).
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSfailed to see why the bonâ fide traveller should not have what refreshment he required on Sunday morning between the hours of 7 and I as well as in any other part of the day.
MR. RATHBONEpronounced the bonâ fide traveller as the greatest impostor who was known to the local magistrates. He was merely a person who went into the country for the purpose of getting drink two or three hours in advance of the time it could be procured nearer home. Licensed victuallers themselves complained greatly of the abuse of the term.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, it was difficult to argue with Gentlemen who—like the hon. Member for Liverpool—began by stating that bonâ fide travellers were not bonâ fide travellers; but that, in fact, this was a class to which no one really grudged refreshments at any time; and the more reasonable course would be for hon. Gentlemen to apply themselves to the satisfactory definition in the Bill of the words "bonâ fide traveller," so far as it was possible to define them.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreminded the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that passengers by the Cunard boats from America who arrived at early hours of the morning in the Mersey were bonâ fide travellers, and yet the Representatives of that town would not have them accommodated with refreshment at one of the Liverpool hotels between the hours of 7 and 1 o'clock on Sundays. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped the Committee would not listen to any such proposal.
MR. GREGORYreminded the Committee that two of the Judges had held that persons who, as ostensible bonâ fide travellers, went to a public-house or tavern solely for the purpose of taking liquor, could not be considered as such, and did not come within the purview of the Act. The privilege was never intended to apply to persons travelling for pleasure, but only to persons actually engaged in business.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that in Scotland there was no difficulty in dealing with the bonâ fide traveller question, and
1114
he would suggest the adoption of the definition of a bonâ fide traveller which was given in the Forbes-Mackenzie Act.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, he had taken some trouble in ascertaining in what manner "the bonâ fide traveller" affair was worked on Sunday. He found that respectable publicans, who desired to abide by the law, closed their houses at 1 o'clock, and they were not troubled with "bonâ fide travellers." The less well-conducted houses were closed, but touts were stationed outside, who said to any one who approached—"Traveller, sir; traveller, sir?" thus giving a sort of invitation; and everybody was allowed to walk into the house so represented, and allowed to remain there so long as they pleased, and drink what they liked. In one instance he found omnibuses ran on Sundays, and on no other day of the week, to a public-house just outside the metropolitan district radius, where people were supplied with liquor indiscriminately. The result was, he saw enough to convince him the privilege was abused in every possible way, and he thought a well-defined line should be drawn as to who were and who were not "travellers." In reference to what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford he would remark that a person who proceeded from a Cunard steamer to the Adelphi Hotel became a lodger there.
COLONEL LEIGHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had spoken of bonâ fide travellers, whereas the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone's) observations were applicable only to malâ fide travellers.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. and learned Recorder of London, he felt bound to press his Amendment to a division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 316; Noes 62: Majority 254.
SIR HENRY JAMES, in moving as an Amendment, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from after "traveller" to "dismiss" in line 13, and insert the words "the justices shall dismiss," said, its purpose was to give effect to what he thought must be intended, but which the clause, as it stood, would not enact. The clause provided that in case the

1115
publican should be unable to prove that a person to whom he had sold intoxicating liquor was a bonâ fide traveller, that the justices were satisfied that he truly believed that the purchaser was a bonâ fide traveller, and had taken all reasonable means to ascertain that he was, it should—
"be lawful for the justices to dismiss the case as against the defendant, and if they think that the purchaser falsely represented himself to be a bonâ fide traveller, to direct proceedings to be instituted against such purchaser under the twenty-fifth section of the principal Act."
Publicans had no means of ascertaining whether a customer was a bonâ fide traveller, and yet had over and over again been convicted for not having done so. He thought it was intended that if it appeared that the publican had done his best to discover whether a customer was a bonâ fide traveller the case against him should be dismissed. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the discretionary phrase, and in order to do so, would move the Amendment.
MR. J. G. TALBOTthought that if there was to be a compulsory duty in the one case there should be a corresponding one on the other, and that it should be compulsory on the magistrates to direct that proceedings be instituted if there appeared to be mala fides.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, thinking it a fair and right one.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was also willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), relative to the bonâ fide travellers, as it was in substance the same proposition as that of the Government.
MR. MELLYsaid, he had put an Amendment on the subject of the bonâ fide traveller on the Paper, because he had thought it undesirable that the bonâ fide. traveller should be defined. Mr. Justice Mellor had laid it down that the expression was in each case to be construed by the common sense of the justice that tried it. The only question was, whether it was desirable that the bonâ fide traveller should be further defined, and, if so, in what terms? Every magistrate would know that great use would be made of any definition as a
1116
direction to magistrates not to convict when persons had gone three miles, though merely to drink, and if that was to be so, nearly the whole, or probably 95 out of 100 persons would not be convicted. The "bonâ fide traveller" meant illicit Sunday morning drinking, which was hated by all respectable publicans, and encouraged by very few, who thus took an unfair advantage of their neighbours, and the Sunday morning drinking led to more misery among the labouring classes than anything. It had become a universal system now. He would read to the Committee a letter he had received from a gentleman on the subject. That letter stated that tramway cars ran to one of the suburbs of the metropolis every Sunday morning. Those tramway cars ran every five minutes, and the passengers were charged 3d., and publicans servants met every car to invite them into public-houses to drink, with the words, "Travellers, sir?" He merely placed this argument before the Committee with the view of asking the Committee as to whether the law ought to exist as at present. He objected to the clause as it stood, not because it was the enunciation of a law, but it was the giving of advice as to who was a bonâ fide traveller, instead of leaving it as before, to be decided on the merits of each case.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSbegged to move in the words of the noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lord Francis Hervey), in page 5, line 18, to leave out all after the word "unless" to the end of the clause, for the purpose of inserting—
"the place where he lodged during the preceding night is at least three miles distant from the place where he demands to be supplied with liquor, such distance to be calculated in a straight line on the ordnance map."
He hoped that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
MR. BULWERthought that the insertion of the words proposed would only add to the difficulty of defining a bonâ fide traveller. In point of fact, if the matter were left as it was, there would be no difficulty at all, for any bench of magistrates of common sense knew well to decide at once what it meant; whereas, if the words proposed were added, the magistrates would not be relieved from any difficulty they felt at present; but would have the further difficulty of de-

1117
ciding what the exact distance was, what was the meaning of the word "lodged," and what was meant by the "preceding night."
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINthought otherwise, and in his experience as a magistrate often saw great difficulties arise in the discussion of the question.
MR. MELLYmoved, as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, the substitution of the word "five" for "three."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not agree to the proposition.
MR. MELLYfeeling that the decision of the Committee would be against his proposal, said he would not trouble the Committee to divide upon it.
Amendment (Mr. Melly), by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. Secretary Cross) agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 (Hours of closing night-houses).
SIR CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he would withdraw an Amendment he had on the Paper with respect to refreshment-house keepers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of Mr. SECRETARY CROSS, Amendment made in page 5, line 35, by striking out "public-houses," and inserting "premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. FAWCETTasked what course Government intended to take with reference to the time of bringing forward the seven great measures mentioned by the Primo Minister on the previous evening?
MR. DISRAELIstated that he would take the Committee on the Bill the first thing on Monday, and when that was disposed of, he would bring forward the Educational Estimates, and take the Factories Bill upon Thursday the 11th.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the Prime Minister had said that supposing the Licensing Bill were got through that night, the Education Estimates would be taken next Monday; it would now be convenient to know at what time.
MR. DISRAELIin reply, said, that as it was uncertain how long the Licensing Bill would take, it would be better to fix the Education Estimates on
1118
Monday week. In that case, after the Licensing Bill on Monday, the Bill to amend the Friendly Societies Act would be taken.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY—REPORT.

  THE PHŒNIX PARK RIOTS.
  Postponed Resolutions 1 and 9 (Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland, and Office of the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland) [reported 1st June], further considered.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Government to particularize how much of the amount (£49,000) had reference to the defence of the actions taken against the Marquess of Hartington, Colonel Lake, and the Dublin Police in the actions arising out of the Phoenix Park riots?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.said, the actions were 13 in number, and it was impossible to ascertain from the Appropriation Accounts what particular sums had been applied to each. In the accounts for 1871–72, the sum of £89 3s. 8d. in those for 1872–3, the sum of £5,415 14 s. 8d. appeared under this head, and in the accounts for 1873–4, there would appear a further sum of £3,671. As to the future sums to be paid he could not say.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was not satisfied with the answer given by the right hon. Baronet. He could not see why the expense which these unfortunate transactions had cost the country should not be known as in the Tichborne case.
  MR. LAWsaid, that an investigation, which was greatly desired by the police, had been promised by the late Government. It could not, however, be instituted because these actions were kept hanging over their heads.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to amend the Law regulating' the Municipal Franchise in Ireland, and to make hotter provision for the rating of occupiers in towns, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. O'SHAUCHNESSY, and Mr. RICHARD POWER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 135.]
  House adjourned at half-after One o'clock, till Monday next,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading.—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation * (88); Powers Law Amendment* (89).
Second Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature Act (1873) Amendment (56).
Third Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue * (78), and passed.

SUEZ CANAL.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD DUNSANYmoved an Address to Her Majesty for Copies of any existing treaties or conventions for ensuring the neutralization of the Suez Canal in war time. The noble Lord said, that great as were our interests, political and mercantile, in the Suez Canal trade, it was remarkable that there was no kind of provision made for protecting our interest by any Treaty in the event of war breaking out. He ventured to think that these interests were imperilled.

  1033
  We had to deal not with a single Power, but with two Powers—namely, the Porte and the Khedive, not to mention M. de Lesseps and his Company. That being so, he thought it necessary that we should have a defined understanding with the parties responsible to us for the non-interruption of the traffic. The Papers for which he moved showed that the dangers that might be anticipated were not chimerical. In fact a total suspension of the traffic had been very recently threatened and had led to great complications: and the Correspondence which had been recently published by the Foreign Office—considerable portions of which the noble Lord read to the House—showed that, even with all Europe on our side we might have to submit to the stoppage of our traffic until we had compromised any matter in dispute. The official intelligence furnished was very meagre; but in these days, through the enterprise of newspaper proprietors, full and accurate intelligence of great public events reached the country much earlier than it did the Government. From the correspondence which appeared in the newspapers it seemed that the Khedive had to threaten M. de Lesseps with the employment of absolute force if he carried out his intention of interfering with the traffic and closing the Canal. The fact that the Suez Canal Company had threatened to close the Canal pending the settlement of any dispute was of itself sufficient to warrant the Government in taking steps to prevent the recurrence of such a danger to our interests, because it was quite within the bounds of possibility that what had been once attempted might be at any moment actually done. There could not be a more favourable moment than the present for buying up the pecuniary rights of the Company, and he did not suppose that there were any other rights which would have to be settled. The serious political difficulties which existed when France claimed the chief influence in Egypt and opposed the influence of this country did not now stand in our way; but those obstacles, or similar difficulties, might spring up if we missed the present opportunity.
  Moved, That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any existing treaties or conventions for insuring the neutralization of the Suez Canal in war time.—(The Lord Dunsany.)
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I quite agree in what the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) said at the beginning of his observations with respect to the importance of the Suez Canal. It is undoubtedly a great work, and one which has given M. de Lesseps a high and an enviable reputation. It is a work which has benefited all Europe; and contrary to general expectation, and especially to the expectations entertained in this country, it has been of greater advantage to the trade and the administration of the British Empire—to our interests both commercial and political—than to those of any other country, or, perhaps, all other countries put together. So far I quite agree with my noble Friend; but I cannot agree with him when he speaks of our position in regard to the Canal as precarious, and of our interests and rights as unprotected. I will not trouble the House by reading documents, but the Concession of 1856, granted by the Viceroy of Egypt, and sanctioned by the Porte, does define in a very precise manner the rights and duties of the Canal Company, and the position of those who use the Canal;—and I may mention in passing that the concession secures the entire neutrality of the Canal as regards commercial relations. As to what my noble Friend said when he referred to the late dispute between M. de Lesseps and all the European Powers, and the threatened closing of the Canal, no doubt, there was a short period of uneasiness and anxiety. Your Lordships will remember that M. de Lesseps claimed a higher rate of tonnage than the Governments of Europe thought he was entitled to. The question was referred to a Commission, which, acting under the sanction of the Sultan, examined the matters in dispute, and a decision was come to on the claims of the Canal Company. M. de Lesseps at the first moment expressed his intention to dispute that decision; but all the Governments of Europe, including that of France, were unanimous as to the rights of the case. Opinion was brought to bear, representations were made to the Sultan, and the Sultan and the Khedive honourably adhered to the engagements they had entered into; and the result was that the Egyptian Government, acting under the authority of the Sultan, announced their intention to take possession of the Canal if the Company in-

  1035
  terfered to stop the traffic. The good sense of M. de Lesseps and the general unanimity of opinion which prevailed among the European Governments prevented matters coming to extremities. At the last moment the managers of the Canal Company gave way and the traffic proceeded as usual. But, my Lords, if that had not been the case—if matters had been pushed to extremities—no worse consequence would have happened than that the Canal would have been temporarily taken possession of by the Government of Egypt, acting under the authority of the Sultan, and for a time—but only for a short time—inconvenience would have been caused to ships passing through in the absence of the skilled artizans and other persons usually employed on the Canal, and whose places could not at once have been filled. But my noble Friend says that we cannot tell what M. de Lesseps may do in the future—that we cannot tell what may happen if a similar difficulty arose, and that it is desirable to take some course which will prevent the possibility of the closing of the Canal. Now, as to the latter eventuality, we ought to bear in mind that we are accustomed to act on the assumption that persons do not do that which would be manifestly opposed to their own interests; but for my own part I am quite prepared to join in considering any reasonable proposition for preventing a recurrence of the difficulty. At the same time I have not the slightest doubt that if it did arise again it would end as it did the other day. Then my noble Friend asks me whether we are prepared to take over the Canal from M. de Lesseps and his shareholders, and—as I suppose he means—to work it by an International Commission. Well, my answer to that is, in the first place, that it is useless to talk of buying a property which is not in the market. I do not suppose anyone would propose to put pressure on M. de Lesseps and his shareholders and buy the property against their will—indeed, considering that they have had all the risk of the undertaking, that would hardly be fair or generous; but whether it would be fair and generous or not, it would be impossible, because it could not be done without the unanimous concurrence of the European Powers; and I venture to affirm that their unanimous concurrence could not be obtained. So much for compulsory
  1036
  purchase. As to the idea of a purchase to be made with the assent of the shareholders, I think it is sufficient to say that no such offer has been put before us. I hope my noble Friend will not ask me to express an opinion in the abstract on a transaction of that kind; because when a man wants to buy a house, or an estate or anything else, he does not, if he is a man of sense, begin by telling the party who has to sell it that its possession is indispensable to him. If a proposition for the transfer of the Canal to an International Commission were to come before us, framed in such a manner that all the Governments would participate in the advantages of the Canal on equal terms, I do not say that might not be a fair proposal to entertain. But it has not been made, and I have no reason to think it will be made. As to the neutralization of the Canal in time of war, that is a large question, but as my noble Friend has not entered upon it I shall not discuss it. As to the Papers for which my noble Friend has asked, I do not think there are any which correspond with the terms of his Notice.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, it was a very unsatisfactory thing that a work of so important a character as the Suez Canal should remain permanently in the hands of an almost insolvent Company. He thought it, too, a great pity that the man who had carried out the greatest enterprise of the present age should not only derive no benefit from it, but really suffer pecuniary loss. He did not think the noble Earl was quite right in supposing that the property of the Company had not been in the market. He believed it had been in the market and that it was in the market now; and he also believed that the shareholders would be very ready under certain circumstances which could not entail any great pecuniary loss either upon this country or others to place the property of the Canal on a more satisfactory position. He did not think the noble Earl was justified in not considering the subject of the neutralization of the Canal in time of war—it certainly pressed much upon his mind. He could not but think it extremely dangerous to leave the Canal in the hands of a private Company. He thought that if the Canal could not be placed under an International Commission some arrangement

  1037
  might be made between this country and the Porte, by which the Khedive might acquire absolute possession of it, and then we should know with whom we had to deal. Depend upon it this country would never permit its commercial or political interests to be interfered with by disputes between M. de Lesseps and other parties as to the use of the Canal.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 56)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 56)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, which contained many Amendments of the Act of last Session, some of which were necessary, and all unobjectionable. It contained, however, one Amendment of extreme importance—one the importance of which, indeed, could not be exaggerated—he meant the proposition for restoring what always had existed in this country, but which was abolished by the Act of last year—a second, or ultimate, appeal in all cases whether from the Courts of Common Law or of Chancery. So heartily did he agree in the propriety of this Amendment that if the question of restoring the second appeal was the only one to be considered he should not have risen to address their Lordships; but with it arose the question of what the Ultimate Court of Appeal should be. He was well aware that he should be met by the statement that the question as to the retention of its appellate jurisdiction by their Lordships' House was settled by the decision arrived at last year; but he desired to point out that the question was now raised for the first time, and that what had been done last year was no settlement of the question at all. The question now arising—namely, to what Court the ultimate appeal should go—had never been decided either in that or the other House of Parliament. The opinion of the Scotch Judges and that of the Scotch Advocates were in favour of the retention of the ap-
  1038
  pellate jurisdiction in their Lordships' House, and the opinions of the Writers to the Signet were to the same effect; and the opinion of the Bench and of the legal profession in Ireland were unfavourable to its abolition. Thus Scotland did not desire it—Ireland did not desire it—and the great body of the people of England did not desire it. Under these circumstances—and Parliament being about to restore the second appeal for English cases, which had been abrogated by the Act of last year—their Lordships had to consider whether the Court of Ultimate Appeal should be their Lordships' House or some other tribunal constituted for that purpose. There had always existed in this country a first appeal and a second appeal; but the jurisdiction of that House as the Court of Ultimate Appeal had often been a subject of controversy. There had been a time when a few only of their Lordships were fitted by training and previous career to hear appeals coming up from the Courts, but that deficiency could not be complained of now when the profession to which he had the honour to belong was so efficiently represented in the House. From time to time plans had been suggested for strengthening the House as a Court of Ultimate Appeal; but never until last year had it occurred to any one to suggest that the way of solving the difficulty was to get rid of the second appeal altogether.
  LORD SELBORNE: The Lord Chief Justice had suggested it.
  LORD PENZANCEbowed to the correction of his noble and learned Friend, who said the Lord Chief Justice had suggested it; but certainly no Committee or Commission or any other body charged with the special consideration of the question had recommended it. However, it was his noble and learned Friend to whom the country was so much indebted for the able and elaborate Bill of last year, who first reduced that suggestion to the form of a clause in an Act of Parliament, and abolished the second appeal. Let him point out what effect the abolition of a second appeal would necessarily have on the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. If there was to be but one appeal it was absolutely impossible that that appeal could be to their Lordships' House. Their Lordships were aware that the number of appeals to the first Court of

  1039
  Appeal was very much larger than that to the second. If there were, say, 400 appeals to the first, there would be not more than 40 to the second. There could be no question therefore that if there was to be only one Court of Appeal, their Lordships' House could not be that Court. It was impossible that 400 or 500 appeals could be heard within the Session by the appellate tribunal of their Lordships' House as at present constituted. Consequently, when last year it was decided there should be only one appeal, it was further decided that such appeal should not be to their Lordships' House. Such a conclusion was only the natural consequence of the previous decision. The present Prime Minister, in a speech made by him last year, pointed out that that must be the case. He said that the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal was a popular tribunal, particularly in Ireland and Scotland; and that so long as the appeals were sifted by the Intermediary Courts, so that not more than 50 or 60 came up to that House annually, they were able to deal with them in the most satisfactory manner; but that the moment you terminated the Intermediate Courts, the appeals would amount to 500 or 600, and that the Lords by their constitution would be quite inadequate to transact business of that amount. This, then, was the reason why the jurisdiction of the House was necessarily surrendered last year. It could not be maintained, if the proposition of having only one appeal was to be adopted. But the reason which justified the abolition of the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House would cease to operate when Parliament erased from the Act of last year the clause doing away with a Second Appeal. Well, then, looking at the matter in the interest of the suitors, he trusted his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would reconsider this matter. He did not believe it would be possible to construct a Court of Ultimate Appeal in which the country would have the same confidence as it had in their Lordships' House. The alternative of his noble and learned Friend was ingenious, but he did not regard it as satisfactory. What was the appeal to the House of Lords? It was, in legal language, "an appeal to Her Majesty in Parliament;" just as the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was "an
  1040
  appeal to Her Majesty in Council." The Common Law Judges were "the Judges of the land," and every one of them on his appointment received a writ commanding his attendance at the House of Lords when required. Within the last 100 years other Judges had been appointed, and it was true that such a writ did not go to them; but there was no reason why it should not. So that it might be said that when sitting on appeals, the strength of the House of Lords was the whole judicial force of the country. It was said by way of objection that the jurisdiction, though nominally in "the House of Lords," was limited to the Law Lords. Considering, however, that the Lords who attended had, generally speaking, all held high judicial appointments he did not think this a very valid objection. A similar objection might be urged against the jurisdiction of the Privy Council. Though the appeal was to "the Queen in Council," the appeal was not heard and determined by the Privy Council but by that portion of it known as the Judicial Committee. Why was it that no one had ever objected to the Judicial Committee as an anomaly? He did not see why the House of Lords should not be constituted into a judicial tribunal in the same manner that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was constituted, and that the Crown should have power to issue writs to the Judges to attend the Court of Appeal, so as to strengthen the tribunal whenever necessary. One objection made to the House of Lords was that it did not consist of permanent Judges, and another that it did not sit all the year round; but to his mind matters of this sort were not to be set against higher considerations—such as how would the Court be first constituted? what was the Court which would most command public confidence and whose decisions would be accepted with the greatest approbation? Now, considering that their Lordships had to settle finally the most delicate and the most disputed questions of the law, and that their decisions were to affect the general law for all future time—it did not appear to him to matter, so long as they settled all causes brought before them within a reasonable time, whether they sat all the year round or not. Now, it was certain that the Court had no arrears of business; so that it had no more business to do than it could get

  1041
  through. The question, then, was whether we could replace a Court of this old, traditional standing by a better Court. He was afraid he could not say the Court proposed by this Bill would be an improvement. The Act of last year provided about 17 Judges; and by his present Bill his noble and learned Friend proposed to form his new Court of Ultimate Appeal out of these 17—the new Court, in fact, was to be a section carved, as it were, out of the Court of Appeal established last year. But, if you were to carve one Court out of another the question arose, why did not you make a separate Court? It was not desirable that one part of a Court should be considered paramount and another part of it subordinate; but it was impossible to avoid that result, where one section or Division of the Court heard appeals from the other, and confirmed or reversed its decisions. The provision that the Judges were to be removed periodically from one Court to the other was one which could hardly be expected to work satisfactorily. As to the general question of the desirability of this House retaining its jurisdiction, for its own sake, he did not propose to argue that question, but he would say that that retention would only be desirable and wise in the interest of the House of Lords so long, and so long only, as the jurisdiction, when exercised, constituted the best form of Court for the suitor that could be devised. The only question was whether any new Court which could be devised would be as effectual and would give as much confidence to the country and as much stability to the law as the jurisdiction which had been hitherto exercised by this House.
  LORD SELBORNEsaid, the question was one that ought to be considered in its relation to the public interest in the administration of justice and the interest of suitors, apart from all partiality or prejudice in favour of an existing tribunal. While no one had a better right than the noble and learned Lord (Lord Penzance) to discuss the details of the Bill, he could not help thinking that the fragmentary discussion of them on the second reading was inexpedient, and that arguments relating to them had better be reserved for the stage of Committee. His noble and learned Friend had said that this House surrendered its jurisdiction in English appeals last Ses-
  1042
  sion, because it was proposed by the Judicature Bill to do away with the second appeal in English causes, and that if this House were constituted the Court for hearing the single appeal, it would be impossible that they could get through the business; and his noble and learned Friend said that, as it was now proposed by the present Bill that there should be a second appeal, the reasons for abolishing the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords had disappeared. He (Lord Selborne) demurred to that statement. The multiplication of appeals was a serious evil; but that was a very different thing from the rehearing, by the same tribunal, of a case which called for reconsideration; and it was very desirable that there should be such a safeguard against the accidental miscarriage of justice. There was no tribunal, however exalted, which would not be the better for such a safeguard; and even a review of the judicial history of this House would furnish instances of decisions which might have been reviewed with advantage to the public and to suitors. It was, therefore, quite consistent with the principle of a single appeal that a Court whose decisions were to be final should have the power of reviewing and reconsidering its own decisions. It was not proposed now any more than last year—he was speaking now of England, not of Ireland and Scotland—that there should be an Intermediate Court of Appeal and a Court of Final Appeal. What was proposed was that, in any case which had been heard before the Court of Final Appeal, there should be a power of rehearing by a greater number of Judges, so as to insure the most careful deliberation and the best-considered decision which, under the circumstances, was possible. As far as English appeals were concerned and the principle went, there was no difference whatever between the proposal of the Bill of last year and the Bill of this. But as to the machinery by which it was to be done there was a difference. Last year it was proposed that the Court of Final Appeal should have a discretion to allow a rehearing, in all proper cases, by virtue of its own inherent power. But now his noble and learned Friend, having to provide for Irish and Scotch appeals, had thought it better to regulate the mode in which it should be done; and, in some cases, to make the re-hearing a matter of right. That proposal would,

  1043
  no doubt, require careful consideration; but it was in substance the same power as was given to the Court by the Bill of last year. He could not help saying that there were many reasons, besides those to which his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken had adverted, which led him to a conclusion diametrically the reverse of that of his noble and learned Friend. Agreeing with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) in making the advantage of the suitor the sole test, he could not agree with him that a Court composed of men entitled to be treated as emeriti, and to be exempt from future service, but who, from public spirit, gave their voluntary attendance to the judicial business of this House, could be superior to such a Court as was constituted by the Judicature Act, whether as agreed on last year or as now proposed to be amended. Of this, he was convinced, that there existed no practical or solid reasons for believing that the judicial power of the new Court would be inferior to that of the House of Lords or the confidence of the public in it would be less. Putting aside, then, all other interests than the interests of the suitors, he could not but think they would tend to shake the confidence of the people in their Lordships' House if they were to take this retrograde step, and undo the work of last Session.
  LORD HATHERLEYsaid, it appeared to him that his noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) had fallen into the error of supposing that that which was merely an incidental consequence of the creation of the new tribunal for the hearing of appeals was the cause of that new tribunal being created; and his noble and learned Friend apparently thought he had justified himself in that view—at least, to a considerable extent—by the citation of the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of Her Majesty's Government that the cause of this House abrogating its jurisdiction was that it was thought desirable by Parliament that appeals should no longer go from an intermediate to another tribunal, but should be carried to a Court of Final Appeal at once; and his noble and learned Friend argued that because the present Bill varied the Act of last Session in this respect, therefore the appellate jurisdiction of this House should be restored and continued. Knowing from a Notice which had been given by a noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) that
  1044
  their Lordships would have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole matter, he was not going to enter into the argument whether or not this House acted wisely in resigning the jurisdiction which it possessed. But he might be permitted to recall a few circumstances which led to that resignation, and which had nothing to do with the question whether there should or should not be Intermediate Courts of Appeal. In the first place, the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House had not been a reality ever since O'Connell's case, their Lordships having relegated the decision of appeals to a small Committee, which took the duty on itself. There was next the doubt whether an adequate number of Peers could always be secured. Some of their Lordships must remember—as he was old enough to do—when the Lord Chancellor sat to consider appeals from his own decisions, with the assistance of two Lords called in as assessors, who did nothing; and evidence had been given before the Committee of their Lordships' House, which sat on the subject, of a Lord Chancellor coming to a conflicting decision with himself. That was a principal cause of the change which had been made. But there was another. Accident at times would deprive the tribunal, after the case had been heard for the most part, of the attendance of the noble and learned Lords who had heard it, so that Peers who had not heard the commencement of the arguments in the case, heard the argument at its termination—and sometimes vice versâ, those who were present at the commencement had ceased to attend at the conclusion. Again, the vacations of Parliament, being frequent and protracted, caused great inconvenience to suitors. These, among other reasons, induced their Lordships to abandon, after grave consideration, their appellate jurisdiction, and he sincerely trusted they would not now reverse the decision they had arrived at.
  LORD DENMANquoted at large from a speech of the noble Lord on the Woolsack, delivered on 15th April, 1872, which exposed the inexpediency of attempting to create one large Court of Appeal. [His Lordship had objected to the taking away of the Lord Chancellor from the House of Lords.] He (Lord Denman) also stated that in 1838, when great changes were made in the Court of Queen's Bench, the name

  1045
  of every officer was placed upon the Act. He declared the Bill re-modelling the Privy Council appeals had been carried after an incorrect assertion as to the qualifications of those who were to sit in order to clear off the arrears. [A laugh.] The noble Lord remarked that it was no laughing matter, and that the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas had not been able, as Attorney General, to destroy trial by jury. He thought from the previous opinions of the Lord Chancellor, his Lordship could not entirely approve of this Bill, though, in order to save the public time, he had done his utmost to make it practicable. He (Lord Denman) denied Lord Hatherley's) assertion, that the House of Lords had abandoned its jurisdiction by leaving to the Law Lords the decision of the O'Connell case; because Lord Wharncliffe had expressly declared that it was in order to preserve the character of the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal and a Court of Law that his Lordship suggested that such of their Lordships as were not Lords learned in the law had not heard the whole case, and could not, therefore, be supposed to be acquainted with the whole of the reasoning upon it, and who therefore were not qualified to pass a judgment upon such an occasion, should abstain altogether from voting. The judgments given by other Law Lords who had not heard the whole of a case, were always founded on a complete study of the case—possibly with the benefit of the advice of the Judges, and with a report of the speeches of counsel before them. It was monstrous for one of their own body to point out defects as irremediable in the constitution of the Court of Appeal. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Hatherley), when on the Woolsack, had taken the name of a magistrate off the commission of the peace for Derbyshire, because he had shown up his fellows in a case in which subsequent events justified that magistrate; but the Appeal Committee was the Committee of the Whole House, and every Peer understanding a case had a right to give his opinion and vote upon it. In the only case in which injustice had been imputed, he (Lord Denman) brought the case before the House, knowing that a noble Lord who had been counsel for the appellant had promised to explain his case; but that noble Lord, though present, said not a
  1046
  word, and he (Lord Denman) found that the case, having been already decided, was inadvertenly re-opened by Lord Brougham—only too great intended kind-ness had been shown to the appellant, resulting in certain defeat, and for it the appellant was much to be pitied. Her Majesty, and several officers formerly in the Guards, had subscribed to relieve the poor man in his old age. He (Lord Denman) would never admit the principle of the Bill, and would oppose it at every stage. In the History of France, they found as to lawyers, that the—
  "Secular Peers and Lords, whom they at first only assisted with their advice, soon yielded to their superiority in those tribunals [Parliament]. Instead of the simplicity and conciseness which characterized the feudal forms of trial…the Judges devoted their attention to the nice discussion of law questions, and encouraged those subtleties which at once perplex and protract, and which throughout Europe so universally disgrace the modern Courts of Justice."
  He (Lord Denman) did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the noble and learned Lords who, having retired, voluntarily, bound themselves to assist the House by their decisions, but felt sure that the diffidence of noble Lords by no means deprived them of their hereditary rights.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that there were many points of discussion which had not yet been raised, and especially the point relating to the abandonment of the appellate jurisdiction of their Lordships' House as respected Scotland and Ireland. The opinions of those two countries had really not yet been considered. The Judges of Scotland had expressed their opinion in favour of retaining that jurisdiction; and so far as Ireland was concerned, it was the unanimous opinion of the legal profession, and of all who were competent to form an opinion relating to the retention of the jurisdiction of the House—though that opinion had not been expressed as absolutely as it had been in Scotland—that it was desirable to retain the jurisdiction in their Lordships' House. That matter having been deliberately considered in those two countries—the Bar and the other branches of the legal profession reposing perfect confidence in their Lordships' House as the Court of Ultimate Appeal, and nothing appearing to show that the country desired a change—he asked, whether it was not entitled to consideration at their Lord-

  1047
  ships' hands? With reference to the creation of a new Court of Ultimate Appeal, he was of opinion that the proposal raised an entirely new question, which their Lordships would have to consider, and pronounce their legislative judgment upon, as if it now came under consideration for the first time. The question would come solemnly before them on the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) on going into Committee, and he trusted that it would then be fully discussed, quite unprejudiced by anything that took place last year.
  LORD MONCREIFFsaid, that he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but he wished to say a word or two on the position of Scotland in regard to this question. Both the noble and learned Lords who had spoken had admitted that the position of affairs was changed by the introduction of the new Intermediate Court of Appeal, and that the same reasons did not exist for abolishing the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House as existed last year. There were two matters for their Lordships' consideration—first, whether the Scotch appeals should remain subject to their Lordships' jurisdiction; and, secondly, whether the new Appellate Court would work satisfactorily. As to the first, it was his feeling that though the removal of English appeals from the House of Lords would tend to impair its dignity and efficiency as a high tribunal, yet it would not become him to oppose the alteration on merely local grounds. Yet he thought, in the altered circumstances of the case, that the position of Scotland was entitled to consideration—because the jurisdiction of this House did not rest so much upon an Act of Parliament as upon a Treaty—for this question had been regulated in a very distinct and particular manner by the Act of Union. A materal alteration had now been made in the position of affairs. As long as the Courts of Law had only the one Final Court of Appeal to go to, there was no reason for retaining the jurisdiction of their Lordships' House, but a proposition was now made that there should be an intermediate Appeal. It was thought not undesirable on the part of the Scotch Judges to state their impression on their Lordships' jurisdiction, and they were unanimous in thinking that it was de-
  1048
  sirable, as far as Scotland was concerned in the administration of the law of the country, that the appellate jurisdiction of the House should be retained. That being so, without now discussing the question of the appellate jurisdiction at all, he should consider the subject generally, and give such general support to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) on going into Committee, as appeared to him to be advisable.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with reference to what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend lately Lord Chancellor of Ireland, I wish to remark that last Session Her Majesty's then Government proposed to the other House of Parliament to include appeals from Scotland and Ireland in the measure which was then before Parliament. A meeting of the legal profession was held in Ireland; and they expressed the opinion which they entertained on the subject. I have not that opinion before me, but for the purpose of what I have to say that does not signify. That opinion was within the knowledge of the then Lord Chancellor of Ireland: as the head of the Bench, he must have known what was thought by the Judges and by the Bar of the proposals of the Government of which he was a Member. It was for him to consider whether, by his presence in that Government, he would recommend that proposal with all the weight of his authority. As a continuing Member of the Government, he represented to Parliament that he thought it was consistent both with the interests and with the views of the Bar and the people of Ireland that that change should be made. After that I will say this, and only this—what my noble and learned Friend has said tonight as to the course which he thinks ought to be taken, and which he is prepared to take, I heard with the respect with which I hear everything from my noble and learned Friend; but while I heard it with respect I heard it with surprise. I am not going now to enter upon the general question of the appellate jurisdiction of this House. No Motion was made on the subject on the second reading of the Bill. I own I should have thought that those who desired to raise the question would have found the second reading of a Bill which proposes to establish an Imperial Tribunal a convenient opportunity for raising

  1049
  the question. My noble Friend (Lord Redesdale) is, of course, the test judge on that matter. I should have thought the second reading was a convenient opportunity for another thing—because if the Amendment were carried it would be fatal not only to this Bill, but to all legislation with which this Bill is connected. I think my noble and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan) has not correctly represented the expression of the feeling of the Profession in Ireland on this subject. I look with the greatest respect on the feeling of the Profession; but, at the same time, the feeling of the Profession is not necessarily the feeling of the country, and the legitimate mode in which the feelings of the people of Scotland and Ireland on this subject will have to be ascertained is by an expression of the opinions of their Representatives in Parliament. But as to the feeling of the Profession, I have had communicated to me formal documents in which that feeling has been expressed—I have received private communications and deputations on the subject—and I do not understand that they deprecate appeals being taken from Scotland and Ireland from this House absolutely, but that what they state is this—which is a very different thing—if you will undo the legislation of last year and restore English appeals to this House—which they would like you to do—then we wish Scotch and Irish appeals to be heard here; but unless you restore the jurisdiction of this House as to English appeals, then we prefer that Scotch and Irish appeals should go to the same tribunal to which the English appeals go. I will not go into the question of the appellate jurisdiction of this House; but I believe that the advantage which has been gained from the exercise by this House of its jurisdiction has arisen from two considerations which are somewhat distinct. I believe it has arisen, in the first place, from the traditional dignity and prestige by which the actions of this House have been surrounded. And I believe it has arisen, in the next place, from the character and qualifications of those by whom the legal jurisdiction of this House has been administered. I know and have felt as much as any person that when the jurisdiction of this House in the administration of the law is terminated it will lose the benefit of much traditional dig-
  1050
  nity and prestige which it has enjoyed—I have never disguised that fact; it would be vain to seek to disguise it; and a sense of it has led me to struggle to find out a way in which we might maintain that jurisdiction. Let me now say a word with regard to the character of the Court to which, under this Bill, that jurisdiction will be transferred. I cannot venture to prophesy, and it is impossible for me to say whether we shall have in the future men such as we have known in the past to take part in the highest legal jurisdiction in the country. However that may be, of this I feel certain, that if the present measure be passed, and if the appointments under it be made in a fitting manner, it cannot but happen that the Imperial Court of Appeal will, as regards the men and the elements composing it, be the strongest legal Court that this country could possibly produce. That is all which I have to say upon this subject at present. I will, however, advert to one or two errors that have been apparent in the course of the discussion. I do not agree with my noble and learned Friend who spoke last (Lord Moncreiff) that the object and effect of this Bill is to reverse or repeal the Bill of last year as to appeals. When I introduced the measure I stated that I understood one of the principles of the Bill of last year to be that, under certain circumstances and with certain qualifications, there might, after a hearing before one of the Divisions of the Court of Appeal, be a re-hearing before a greater number of Judges. I do not call that an appeal—I call it a re-hearing it, and, of course, the meaning of such a procedure, after it has been developed by rules, is, not that there will be a judgment, and afterwards a reversal of the judgment, but that before judgment is finally given, and although a decision has been arrived at and expressed, the decision will be subject to review, and the final judgment will be pronounced after such review. The objection which I felt, and which I expressed last Session, was that the power of having this re-hearing was not conferred as a matter of right, but was made optional on the part of the tribunal which in the first instance heard the case; and, moreover, that no definite arrangement was made as to the composition of the Division or tribunal before which the re-hearing should take

  1051
  place. What is now proposed is merely an enlargement and not a repeal or alteration of the principle to which I have referred. As to the terms and occasions on which a re-hearing should be allowed, that is but a matter of detail. I should propose that it be allowed when there is a difference of opinion at the first hearing. Your Lordships may think proper, however, to give a still greater licence in the matter. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Penzance) talked of this measure as very anomalous, because it carved one Court out of another; but the principle of a re-hearing will be found laid down in the Report of the Judicature Commission, on which the Act of last year was based; and in practice it exists, for example, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had given Notice of a Motion on going into Committee which would raise the whole question, and therefore he would not enter upon it on the present occasion; but a strong argument against the Bill was to be found in the admission of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the House would lose its traditional dignity and prestige by having its appellate jurisdiction taken from it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the noble Lord had misapprehended his meaning. What he had meant to say was that the traditional dignity and prestige which attached to the House in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction would be lost to the new tribunal; not that the House itself would suffer.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, at all events the noble and learned Lord admitted that he had struggled to maintain the jurisdiction of the House. With whom, he might ask, had the noble and learned Lord had to struggle? Two of the three Kingdoms had openly declared that they would rather have this tribunal than any other; and he believed that if the opinions of the Judges of England were obtained it would be found that they were nearly unanimous in favour of retaining the House as the Ultimate Court of Appeal. Nobody had asked for the removal of the appeals from this House—never had there been a legislative change made with so little occasion for it. With regard to the proposed new Court of Appeal, one great objection
  1052
  he had to it was that the Judges would be appointed for only a limited time—namely, for three years. At the end of that period they might or might not be re-appointed. This he regarded as a most unconstitutional proposal, for it would make the appointments depend practically upon a continuance of the favour of the Crown. Then it appeared that there would be a different tribunal for Scotland and Ireland and for England. In the latter case there would be a re-hearing only, while Scotland and Ireland were to have appeals, and were, therefore, as it seemed to him, placed in an inferior position. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Hatherley) had stated that since O'Connell's Case the appellate jurisdiction of this House was not a reality. He (Lord Redesdale) contended that it was. Just as under the name of "Her Majesty's Courts," "Her Majesty's Ships," the great Monarchical principle was involved, so the association of the appellate jurisdiction with the House gave it an authority and a prestige at which the Bill would strike a fatal blow. He would only add that he meant to press the Resolution of which he had given Notice on the Motion for going into Committee to a division, when he hoped every noble Lord who entertained the same views as he did on the subject would vote with him. If they only had the courage of their convictions, he felt satisfied there would be found to be a large majority in favour of retaining the appellate jurisdiction of the House.
  THE EARL OF FAVERSHAMsaid, he was strongly in favour of the retention of the appellate jurisdiction of the House, not only for Scotland and Ireland, but for England. At no time, he maintained, were their Lordships more competent to discharge that jurisdiction than at present, when they numbered among their Members so many eminent lawyers. The country and the legal profession, he maintained, had the utmost confidence in their Lordships' decisions as a Court of Appeal—and the feeling of the people in the Three Kingdoms was in favour of their retaining their jurisdiction—and he begged the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to pause before he struck a final blow at what must be regarded as a great constitutional privilege of the House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," to enable the School Board for London to put in force "The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845," and the Acts amending the same—Was presented by The LORD PRESTDENT; read 1a. (No. 88.)

  POWERS LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to alter and amend the law as to appointments under Powers not exclusive—Was presented by The Lord SELBORNE: read 1a. (Mo. 89.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.