Sitting of 17 June 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Apothecaries Licences* [155].
Second Reading—Permissive Prohibitory Liquor [9], put off; Rabbits [100], debate adjourned; Personation * [146].
Committee—Working Men's Dwellings [22]—R.P.
Withdrawn—Cruelty to Animals Law Amendment (No. 2) * [104].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—COUNTY OF DURHAM (SOUTHERN DIVISION).
MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from Mr. Justice Mellor, one of the Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions in England, a Report relating to the Election for the County of Durham (Southern Division).
That in the matter of the Election Petition complaining of the Election and Return of Joseph Whitwell Pease, esquire, and Frederick Edward Blackett Beaumont, esquire, who at the late General Election were returned to serve in Parliament for the Southern Division of the County of Durham, Mr. Justice Mellor reported that a summons for leave to withdraw the said
2
Petition came on to he heard before him this day, and being satisfied that the withdrawal of such Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition, he had made an order for the withdrawal of the same.

PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.— [BILL 9.]
(Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Thomas Beaky, Mr. Downing, Mr. Richard, Mr. Dalway, Mr. Charles Cameron, Mr. William Johnston.)
PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.— [BILL 9.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONmoved the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  MR. WHEELHOUSEin rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that had he consulted his own inclination he should have followed the example of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, who submitted the Motion for second reading without explanation or introduc-

  3
  tory remark; for he should have much preferred not to say one word in proposing the Amendment then in his hands; but, as he had informed the hon. Baronet, he felt that in a new House of Commons, the matter stood in a different position from that in which it was placed last year. Had it been otherwise, he should not, on the Motion for the second reading, have entered into all the minutiae and details of this Bill. But circumstances had very much changed since last Session, and when he asked the House to reject this so called Permissive Prohibitory Liquor measure, it was only paying a deserved tribute of respect to the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to say, that in doing so he (Mr. Wheelhouse) experienced some scintilla of regret; for it was matter of no little difficulty to deal with an opponent, at once, so kind, thoughtful, manly, and fair as he always proved himself. Both he and the hon. Baronet had passed through a long period of active political life, and however they might differ in political opinion, each considered this was no personal matter between him and the other side, but that each was simply performing a duty which he owed to society. The Bill which was then before the House manifestly and unmistakeably was one which practically sought to put an end to drinking of every class and kind, if not throughout every portion of the United Kingdom, at all events, throughout the greater part. It might, and possibly would, be stated that the ratepayers must back up the Permissive Prohibitory principle before it could be brought into operation in the several parishes, districts, or counties, as the case might be. That statement was very pretty in theory, but once allow the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle to carry out his view, and it followed as a direct logical conclusion that he meant drinking of all kinds—whether beer, wines, spirits, or anything else—should be practically prohibited throughout the whole of this country. Now, was that a reasonable proposition in itself? Why should not he, if he thought fit, drink a glass of wine, beer, or spirits; and if it were not right that he should be prohibited—and no living man could ever prohibit him—was it reasonable or just that the man having no cellar of his own, having no club to which he could resort, should be
  4
  debarred or prohibited from drinking anything in reason, that he desired to procure? But that was by no means the worst feature or only object of the Bill. According to the 10th clause there could be no question that the object was—and the hon. Baronet himself was always ready—so far as he individually was concerned, though a very different line of conduct was sometimes pursued in other cases—to admit it to be the object—not only to shut up every public-house throughout the length and breadth of the land, but to close all the breweries and distilleries in the country. They had at present an enormous quantity of wine imported into Great Britain, and if restrictions were placed on its importation, those who could not get beer or malt liquor made in this country would import it themselves. The object, therefore, which the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle desired to promote avowedly and practically, must fail. He could not, if he desired it ever so much, or by any means that he could devise, stop the importation of wine or the distillation of spirit, or the manufacture of beer, for breweries and distilleries would rapidly be raised up outside the jurisdiction of the country at Boulogne or elsewhere, and they would simply find beer and spirits imported just as wine now was, so that the object would be defeated utterly in that respect; but it would fail in a way in which there could be no doubt, throughout the length and breadth of the land creating a monopoly which might carry with it ability on the part of the upper classes in life to purchase what they wanted, while at the same time, it took away from the poor man, who had neither club nor cellar, the privilege of having a glass of beer, however thirsty he might feel, or however much he might desire reasonable refreshment. Such a state of things, he believed, would produce revolt and revolution in this country. There were gentlemen who, in the earnestness of their views—he would not say believed they could make people sober by Act of Parliament, but who thought that good of some kind would result in passing a measure of this description. Now, he apprehended that the old rule, which he had been taught from childhood, and from which he had never departed, was true of English legislation, and that rule was, or ought to he—for recently it

  5
  had been more and more infringed from day to day—that so long as men did you no harm, and did not interfere with your purposes of life or daily avocations, you had no right or business to deal with them, or in any way to restrict them in matters in which they should have the same freedom of opinion as yourself. That he always understood to be the rule and intention of English legislation. Latterly, however, there had sprung up a sort of semi-paternal desire for everybody to rule everybody else—to go far, perhaps he should not say to meddle and muddle in every direction, whether people wished it or not—but as if everybody except the individual concerned required legislation. But when the immediate subject of legislation bore directly on that individual himself, it was wonderful how soon his views changed. One had only to bring in a Bill affecting adversely his interests, or running counter to his views and opinions, when we find him getting up and saying, "This will never do," because it affected him personally; so that, unfortunately, it was not always from motives of the purest and most unalloyed patriotism that a certain amount of bias, however unconsciously, was imported at times into discussions in that House. But in all such matters he most thoroughly acquitted the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. As far as that movement was concerned, he believed that no man could be more zealously and more completely, with greater heart and mind, devoted to the cause with which his name stood identified. All his advocacy went to show, from first to last, a consciousness of duty to put a stop to illegal, or, even indeed, to legal drinking, so far as it was possible to do so. Now, let them suppose that this Bill was passed to-morrow. What would happen? What would be the effect? He (Mr. Wheelhouse) would not be interfered with. His friends would not be interfered with. Men in an independent position of life could not be in the slightest degree affected, so long as they had a stock of wine in their cellars. By no prohibition that it was possible to conceive could an embargo be laid on him, his friends, or their families. But look to the consequences, on the other hand, to those who were in the position of what was called by some the inferior classes. There
  6
  would be no public-houses, no possibility of getting a glass of beer, or of brandy, even if it were to save life: and he had known instances of the kind where a glass of brandy had, medicinally, proved most valuable. What would be said throughout England if the House of Commons, helped by the House of Lords, had passed a Bill of the kind which prohibited the humbler and less-favoured classes from getting what they wanted, and left untouched the legislators themselves? Would it not be wrong and disgraceful if the Parliament of England gave its sanction to any enactment of the kind? In the North of England, the part of the country with which he was best acquainted, he had no hesitation in saying that the people were growing more sober in their habits day by day. That was not because they were averse to taking a glass of beer or spirits according to their means. They did that, but they knew that intemperance was a disgrace to them as individuals, and would cause them to forfeit not only their position with their employers and their standing in society, but their own self-respect. The common-sense of Englishmen in these matters was invaluable. They might trust the working men to take a shrewd view of their own interests. A working man knew very well that if he became a drunkard, he would lose any chance of keeping the situation in which he might be; that he would lose all opportunity of being promoted to be overlooker or foreman, or, in fact, of any rise in life. No employer in his senses would either employ a drunkard when he could get a sober man, or give the preference to an intemperate and unsteady man, who was to be entrusted with the responsibility of looking over others. Those were ordinary restraining influences far stronger than any legislation, and they worked he had no doubt powerfully upon society at large. But he was told that there had lately been a great increase in the consumption of spirits and beer, and some persons attributed that increase to what was called "secret," he did not call it "illicit," drinking, because the Wine Licensing Act which enabled grocers to sell wines, spirits, and beer was public enough, however "secret" might be the consumption to which it might have led. He never liked that Act, but it was in existence, and it would

  7
  be difficult after it had become a part of the law of the country to repeal it, even if the necessity for doing so were, perhaps, more apparent than it was. But he did say that it was wrong to attribute solely to the licensed victuallers or the beer-sellers the increase of the consumption of spirituous liquors and beer. The beer-sellers, at any rate, were not chargeable with that, they had nothing to do with it. And it was a fact, palpable as it was notorious, that the increased consumption of spirits was conterminous in point of date with and from the passing of the Wine Licensing Act. He knew many licensed victuallers and beer-house keepers, and he knew that they all felt that there was no greater enemy to himself than the licensed victualler who encouraged drunkenness in his house. The drunkard sent away all the respectable people who would otherwise have become customers, and the house became deserted and desolate. They had all seen cartoons and pictures illustrative of the dreadful state of drunkards. He admitted all that could be said on that subject. No man had a greater contempt than he had for the habitual drunkard, but it was quite another thing when they came to deal with men who took refreshment in moderation, and who did not fall into excess. He could not comprehend why a man who took reasonable refreshment should be prohibited from taking either wine, spirits, or beer, any more than he should be prohibited from taking beef or bread. It was neither right nor reasonable to punish the moderate man because he lived in a neighbourhood where there were a few drunkards. If a drunkard broke the law, punish him; but do not punish the man who did not offend against it. What had that to do with him? Under this Bill, however, he would be punished, not for any offence committed by himself, but because others might break the law. Because others were drunkards, why should the moderate and temperate man be deprived of his ordinary refreshments? He knew that all these things spoke trumpet-tongued for themselves, not only in that House, but outside of it; and he knew also that in face of such a powerful public feeling, such a Bill as this had no chance of becoming law; but it was necessary to point out the evils which would follow if ever it did. If in consequence
  8
  of absence of mind, or by accident, there should ever be a majority in its favour in that House, and if by an improbable, or rather impossible accident, it should have a majority in what was called "another place," what would be the result? Why, that the Legislature would be called upon by an indignant and aroused people the day after to-morrow to retrace their steps and repeal the Act. Some years ago there was an attempt to introduce in a mitigated form the Forbes-Mackenzie Act in this country. The working men of England resisted such an attack upon their liberties and their habits, and they put a speedy end to such ill-advised and intolerant legislation. Prohibition they would resist to the utmost, but to regulation within due bounds they would readily submit. Now, as to this Bill. First of all it began with a very grave declaration, which, he believed, the House was not prepared to make. It began as followed:—
  "Whereas the common sale of intoxicating liquors is a fruitful source of crime, immorality, pauperism, disease, insanity, and premature death, whereby not only the individuals who give way to drinking habits are plunged into misery, but grievous wrong is done to the persons and property of Her Majesty's subjects at large, and the public rates and taxes are greatly augmented; and whereas it is right and expedient to confer upon the ratepayers of cities, boroughs, parishes, and townships the power to prohibit such common sale as aforesaid. Be it therefore enacted," &c.
  He did not know that the common sale of a glass of beer produced all, or one-half, or one quarter of the evils enumerated. He could understand that if a man drank hard, and consumed some gallons of spirits in a short time, he might die of delirium tremens, and leave a family behind him to go into the workhouse, and thus become a burden upon the rates; but he did not know why because of such an exceptional case, the moderate and temperate men, who constituted the great bulk of the population, should be punished by being deprived of their ordinary refreshments. He knew there were people who thought that men could live without those refreshments or stimulants, and who said—"You ought to be prohibited from taking them because your example has the effect of encouraging intemperance. If we take away the power of consuming intoxicating liquors altogether the first step towards drunkenness can never be taken." That argument might be used

  9
  in many other cases; but he must say that he was very far from comprehending such a line of reasoning applied to everyday life—he never had been able to follow it, and he believed he never would. Well, having given the Preamble to the Bill, he came to the 1st clause—
  "At any time from and after the passing of this Act it shall he lawful for or more ratepayers residing in any municipal borough or parish, by notice in writing under their hands, to require the mayor of such municipal borough, or the overseers of the poor of such parish, of the ratepayers of such borough or parish respectively, as to the propriety of bringing into operation therein the provisions of this Act,"
  and on that requisition of the ratepayers the Mayor or overseers were to issue public notices of the time of voting for or against the adoption of the Act. Let them just look at the effect of this. The mayor or overseers might no doubt be highly respectable persons in their own way, but by Clauses 3 and 4 they were required and empowered to distribute and collect voting papers, on which the ratepayers mark; and the ratepayers only, not the body of inhabitants generally, were required to write "Yes" or "No." In a parish, perhaps, some seven miles long that would cause no little expense; but that was not the worst. Who was to guarantee that the voting papers when collected would give the genuine answers of the ratepayers themselves? He would not attribute deliberate fraud, but they all knew how anxious a strong party on the side of the hon. Member for Carlisle, who had first put this machinery in Motion, would be to achieve their object, and such things had happened. What would be the result? In a parish, say of 2,500, a majority of two-thirds of such ratepayers would have the power of preventing all their neighbours from obtaining the refreshments to which they had been accustomed, and the want of which they would feel to be a great deprivation. The moment these two-thirds of the ratepayers willed it, the Bill became ipso facto law, and for three years every public-house in the parish, city, borough, or township would be closed; the property of the publican would be confiscated, the vats of the brewer, the machinery of the distiller, the whole of the plant employed in the trade would be stopped working, and everything would go to wreck and
  10
  ruin, at the will of a number however small, it might be half-a-dozen or a couple even of irresponsible ratepayers, who might be worked upon in the manner he had suggested. The hardship to a ratepayer who was in the minority was that he would be deprived of the chance of getting a glass of beer for three years, if he lived so long in the parish after the Act was put in operation. There was this peculiarity in the Bill—that while it gave every encouragement to keep up a continuous agitation in favour of the introduction of the Bill—once it had been adopted—those who were opposed to it could do nothing for three years. The 8th and 9th clauses were singular illustrations of the notions of fair play which were entertained by the framers of the Bill. And he called the especial attention of the House to the marginal notes in reference to each of those clauses. He ventured to think that while that appended to the 8th clause was plain enough, the side note of Clause 9 was couched in language obscure enough to mislead, if not actually to deceive, since it carefully avoided all mention of the three years inserted in the body of the proposed enactment itself. The 8th clause provided, after a vote against the adoption of the Act, one year was to intervene before another vote was taken; and yet, singularly enough, the very next clause, Clause 9, provided that three years must elapse before the ratepayers of any borough or parish in which the Act had been adopted should be entitled to call upon the Mayor or overseers to reconsider the question. By these clauses the advocates of the prohibitive system gave themselves the power of keeping up an agitation all over the country from six months to six months; in other words of keeping everybody in hot water from year's end to year's end, but the moment they succeeded in any one place, no matter how sorely their victims might feel the grievance imposed upon them, they must not move for three years in the matter, and for that long period bear without the chance of redress the yoke laid upon them. He called that as cool a proposition as ever was laid before the Legislature of any civilized country. He did not understand that kind of legislation at all, but here it was in the Bill. He did not know what the House might think upon the

  11
  subject; but this he did say, that they ought to have a clear, definite, and distinct understanding that what they agreed upon should be at least fair to both sides. He knew that conscientious people possessed by certain ideas, and mixing but little with society outside of their own circles, might almost unconsciously err in that respect. The teetotalers, as a body, were utterly ignorant of the feelings of a large portion of the people on this question. It might be replied—"Look at the Petitions which have been sent to the House in favour of the Bill." Well, they all knew how these Petitions were got up. There were Rechabites, Good Templars, and he knew not how many more fussy, energetic, well-organized bodies, noisy rather than numerous, who got up meetings attended only by a few of their own members; the cut-and-dry Petition was agreed to; it was hawked round for signature, and then sent in as an expression of public opinion—a quality to which it had not the slightest pretension. They all knew that the managers of these movements were more energetic than rational, or, at all events, their energies were very ill directed. Then, in another clause, came the most extraordinary proposition which had ever been made in a civilized country. Here were the words—
  "From and after the time limited for the commencement of this Act in any borough or parish, no licence whatever shall he granted or renewed for the sale of any alcoholic liquor within such borough or parish; and any person selling or disposing of such alcoholic liquor within such borough or parish shall be dealt with as selling without a licence, and shall be subject to all the penalties provided for such offence under any Act or Acts of Parliament which may be in force at the time of the adoption of this Act."
  He could scarcely conceive of a proposition more extraordinary, or one calculated to inflict more inconvenience upon a whole population, or greater loss upon persons engaged in a particular trade without reason and without compensation, than that contained in this clause. To make such interests depend on the votes of two-thirds of the ratepayers in any locality—say of 1,600 out of 2,500—be it remembered, too, without asking or consulting the general body of inhabitants, was wholly opposed to justice, and he did not believe that Parliament would ever sanction such legislation. They all knew perfectly well that those
  12
  who supported this Bill meant far more than they thought it discreet openly to avow. They meant—if they had the power to do so—to shut up every brewery, distillery, and public-house of entertainment in England; and, as a consequence, every brewery, distillery, and public-house in Ireland and Scotland. The Bill meant that, and nothing less than that. He only wished the House fully to realize, or rather to idealize, what the effect of such legislation would be on the people of this country. He ventured to say that if its provisions were carried into operation, it would create a feeling of indignation and discontent throughout the length and breadth of the country. They all knew what the supporters of this Bill did in the North of England. There was a certain number of persons called Rechabites, and they, accompanied by others, went with a memorial, signed by a certain number of ratepayers, to the justices at licensing time, and endeavoured to represent to them that they wanted no more public-houses in the neighbourhood, and their request was sometimes—though, he was happy to say, not always—listened to. He (Mr. Wheelhouse) was happy to find that of late years most of the justices had come to the conclusion that it was not desirable to allow of interference from, or to give audience to, persons who had no locus standi whatever on such occasions. The practice was, he thought, a most unjust and unreasonable one, and any measure calculated to support or encourage it should not be sanctioned by this House. He had gone through at some length the provisions of the Bill, in order that the House might clearly understand it, and, in doing so, he had performed to the best of his ability a duty he imposed on himself, and would now conclude by moving the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. GOLDSMID, who had a similar Notice of Motion on the Paper, in seconding the Amendment said, that early that morning they were discussing a Bill on the same subject, but of a totally different character, and now they had a measure before them which his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle must know would be totally impracticable if it was ever put into operation. He (Mr. Goldsmid) had a great personal regard for his hon. Friend. He knew that no one in that House was

  13
  more deservedly popular than he was, on account of his amiability of character and benevolence of disposition, but no one was more dangerous or more difficult to deal with than a kind-hearted and amiable fanatic. What did his hon. Friend really propose by his Bill? He asked the House to allow two-thirds of the ratepayers to close all the public-houses in the country. Now, he (Mr. Goldsmid) believed he would be correct when he stated that the number of ratepayers in this country was about one-fifth of the population, and two-thirds of one-fifth amounted to two-fifteenths. Therefore, according to his hon. Friend's Bill, two-fifteenths of the population were to be empowered to prevent thirteen-fifteenths from getting their beer, or any other refreshment, when they required it. Now, that he conceived to be a gross injustice, which this House would never sanction. Well, then, he would further ask, of what class were these two-fifteenths of the population composed? Why, of men like his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who had a good cellar at home, and for whom, of course, there was no necessity to go to a public-house. But was that a reason why they should prevent the rest of the population from obtaining what refreshments they required? That showed the gross unfairness of the Bill. But it did not stop there. Let them take the clause referred to by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. By it the supporters of the Permissive Bill might renew agitation from year to year, however great the majority by which they were defeated; but if they, on any one occasion, happened by chance to get a majority of two-fifteenths of the ratepayers of a parish or district in favour of compulsory closing, then they were to have it all their own way for three years, and the thirteen-fifteenths of the population were not to be allowed to raise the question again for three years. This was not only unfair, but also oppressive. Now, having pointed out what appeared to him to be the great unfairness and offensiveness of the Bill, let the House see on what grounds his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle supported it. He (Mr. Goldsmid) had heard him say in many past Sessions, when introducing his Bill, that drunkenness had increased and was increasing, and that this Bill of his was
  14
  the remedy. Now, of this increase of drunkenness, he had never given any proof; on the contrary, it was well known that the education and moral habits of the people had greatly improved, and that men had thereby learnt to respect themselves. A man who respected himself did not drink to excess; and, consequently, drunkenness was decreasing, and not increasing. It should be remembered that not more than a generation ago, gentlemen moving in the upper classes of society were in the habit of taking many a glass too much; but that practice was now gone, and he believed that the public opinion which caused its disappearance would, in the same manner, remove the habit from the working classes. He did not, therefore, believe that the allegation made by his hon. Friend that drunkenness had been on the increase was correct. But even if he admitted for a moment that it had been so, did his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle believe his plan was capable of putting an end to it? He (Mr. Goldsmid) could not think it was. All the evidence was the other way. In 1872 the junior Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll); and, in 1873, the late Member for Bath (Mr. Dalrymple), both warm sup-supporters of the Bill, after visiting America to see for themselves the working and results of the Maine Liquor Law, gave to the House the results of their investigation. These were anything but satisfactory to the hon. Baronet, who had himself been invited over and over again to go to America to judge for himself; but who had, for obvious reasons, declined the invitation. Well, the two Gentlemen had returned to confess that the whole plan was a total failure. He remembered well Mr. Dalrymple saying that, in Boston alone, which was the head-quarters of the system, 300 different kinds of wines and spirits were sold; and that he was told, in what was there called an "ice-cream" shop, that they were in favour of the Maine Liquor Law, but against its enforcement—what could be a greater sham than that? Again, see what was stated in The Boston Advertiser of January, which estimated that the number of places in that city where liquors could be obtained exceeded 3,500, and went on to say that—
  "During the past year the State constables have prosecuted about 700, or about one in five,

  15
  while neither the number of places nor the quantity of liquor sold has been diminished at all. These complaints," it continued, "have been notoriously made against the least influential persons in the business, and this is why the public are astonished when a man of some mark is visited, or when more than merely a nominal amount of liquor has been seized. The State constables do not complain of the principal hotel keepers, for it is not politic to do so, as that would put the law to such a strain that its repeal, or the overthrow of the party sustaining it, would surely follow."
  The Boston Advertiser further said that—
  "The Commissioners know that they cannot rely upon the machinery of Courts to convict and imprison a man of high social position under this statute—something gives way."
  Did not all this prove the absurdity of the law? He (Mr. Goldsmid) would add that, in the Maine Liquor Law States, if beer could not be obtained elsewhere, it could always be purchased at the chemists' shops under the name of "extract of malt." Further, he desired to quote the opinion of Mr. Martin Griffin, who had recently resigned the post of State Police Commissioner at Boston, and who said—
  "I am now fully convinced that the Prohibitory Law, as it now stands on the Statute Books, is detrimental to the cause of temperance, and that it leads to corruption and inefficiency."
  What could be stronger than that? Again, it was well known that in those Permissive hotels where no liquor was sold during meals, after dinner any drink could be obtained at a bar open upstairs, to which the diners were invited on pleas more or less hollow. Notwithstanding all that, the hon. Baronet was asking Parliament to pass this sham piece of legislation, and that, too, in the face of the positive proofs obtained in the very home and head-quarters of the Maine Liquor Law, that the legislation in question had entirely broken down as a remedy for drunkenness. Not only would the Bill, if passed, prove a mere sham, but it would result either in a revolt against an oppressive law, or an utter disregard of its provisions by the great mass of the people—either result being equally to be deprecated, for he would ask, was it the duty of the House of Commons to pass a law against which the moral sense of the people revolted, and which, everyone knew, must, at the best, be a dead letter? Another objection to the Bill was, that it would inflict a great injury upon a large and respectable class of persons
  16
  who were engaged in the liquor business. The class of persons engaged in this business had of late years greatly improved in respectability. Many of them were men of position and standing in society who had invested large sums of money in the business, and who were therefore entitled to more consideration than the hon. Baronet proposed to extend to them. The General Election, moreover, showed that public opinion was against the measure, and there could be no doubt that fewer persons, both in and out of the House, were in favour of it than some five or six years ago; consequently it seemed that the more the measure was ventilated, the more it retrograded. He might remark, in passing, that, so far as he knew, no hon. Member of distinction or eminence in that House, with the exception of the hon. Baronet, had ever supported the Bill then under consideration. Public opinion hero was, as he had shown, opposed to the principle of the Bill; and all the highest individual authorities could be quoted on the side of public opinion. He (Mr. Goldsmid) agreed with Oliver Cromwell, who, in replying to some Scotch Minister, said—
  "Your pretended fear lest error should step in is like the man who would keep all the wine out of the country lest men should be drunk. It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousie to deny a man the liberty he hath by nature, upon a supposition he may abuse it; when he doth abuse it, judge."
  So said he (Mr. Goldsmid). Till a man abused his liberty and rights, do not judge him. But, perhaps, the hon. Baronet might object to the antiquity of this opinion. If so, he would give him the views of a great Liberal Statesman of the present day, whom the hon. Member would himself respect—namely, Mr. John Bright, who had written in answer to a supporter of the Bill—
  "I wish I could vote in accordance with the purport of the Resolution; but I cannot do so, for reasons which I have more than once explained to my friends in Birmingham. I am as anxious to promote the cause of temperance as any man who supported that resolution; but I must endeavour to promote it by means which are consistent with reason, with constitutional practice, with a consideration for the just rights of those concerned, engaged in a legal traffic, and with my own view of what is likely to be effective towards the end we seek. I see great good in this end which your friends profess to seek—the lessening of the great evil of intemperance. But I think I observe a remarkable absence of wisdom in the chief measure they

  17
  offer for our adoption. I think it is one which, in its present shape, can never be adopted by Parliament, and which, if it were adopted, would grievously disappoint its most sanguine friends. I regret deeply that I am obliged to differ from so many zealous and good men on this question. I must, however, accept my own judgment and conscience as my guide in the course I must take in regard to it. I wish I could have written you a different reply. What I have written I am sure you will not unfairly interpret."
  He (Mr. Goldsmid) quite agreed with Mr. Bright, and he thought the House would agree with him, in the truth of the opinions expressed by the high authority from whom he had quoted, and in the view that the Bill of the hon. Baronet displayed a "remarkable absence of wisdom." It was not pleasant to refer to personal matters in a debate on a public question, nor did he (Mr. Goldsmid) desire to infringe the privacy of any man's home; but, if he was correctly informed, the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill did not endeavour to enforce abstinence from intoxicating drinks upon those who, as friends and guests, assembled under his hospitable roof. He therefore failed to see how a Gentleman who had not the courage of his opinions in his own house, could ask the House of Commons to adopt the principle of abstinence on behalf of the country generally. The real fact was, that the hon. Baronet made the mistake of confounding the use of a thing with its abuse. Supporters and opponents of the Bill alike agreed in condemning the abuse of intoxicating drinks; but the opponents of the measure scorned to be alone in the view that, so long as abuse was avoided, the use of beer, wine, and spirits was anything but perfectly legitimate. These were the reasons why he ventured to second the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, and for similar reasons, the House last year emphatically pronounced against it. He would in conclusion ask the hon. Baronet to adopt the principle of his Bill, and be a total abstainer from troubling the House again during the present Parliament with this measure. The hon. Baronet knew full well that he never would carry it through Parliament, as the feelings of the country were entirely against him; and, therefore, he would be consulting the public interest, and would save the time of the House, if he would follow the advice he (Mr. Goldsmid) ventured to offer. He hoped that the
  18
  House would sanction the Amendment by a decisive majority.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SCOURFIELDcontended that-private action of individuals ought not to be considered by Parliament. He objected to creating small Parliaments throughout the length and breadth of the country, and to making two-thirds of the inhabitants of parishes the arbiters and judges over the requirements of the remaining one-third. If the penalties directed against drunkenness were not severe enough, let them be made more severe and be properly enforced; but they ought to be careful how they interfered with the freedom of the mass of temperate people, under the plea of putting down drunkenness. If they were to legislate against everything which in any way conduced to intemperance, they must legislate against the sale of red herrings and other provocatives of thirst. He did not regard the Petitions presented in respect to that Bill as any real index of public feeling on the subject, because it was only those persons who wished the existing state of things to be changed who agitated and petitioned, while the far greater number who were perfectly content remained quiet. It was dangerous for any Government to make itself disagreeable to the country by repressive legislation, which should follow and not lead public opinion. Comparatively few people might be able to understand difficult questions of policy, but every man knew when he was annoyed; and when politicians annoyed him by their irritating legislation he was apt to resent it, perhaps at a very inconvenient time. Viewing that Bill as an attempt to fly in the face of human nature, he must, though sympathizing with the motives of its advocates, give it his decided opposition.
  DR. C. CAMERONsaid, it seemed to him that the House and the supporters of the measure had derived great advantage from the course which the debate had taken, because the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) had, to a great extent, answered the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-

  19
  house). The hon. Member for Leeds had endeavoured to show that, if the Bill became law, they would have not only public-houses and other places where drink was retailed closed, but breweries shut up. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) told the House that a larger variety of liquors could be obtained in those part of the United States where laws analogous to those proposed by the Bill were in force, than in any place else under the sun. Both hon. Members had assured the House that drunkenness was decreasing, and that public opinion was improving. Now all that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wanted was, that public opinion should have fair play. The hon. Member for Leeds expressed the great reliance he placed in the common sense of the community, and the hon. Member for Carlisle so far agreed with it, that he desired to be bound by the common sense of two-thirds of the community. The hon. Member for Rochester based one of his great arguments against the Bill upon the fact that it proposed to place the power of prohibition in the hands of two-thirds of the ratepayers, which he told the House was only equivalent to two-fifteenths of the community, the proportion of ratepayers being only one to every five inhabitants. Surely, the hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the same relation between the number of ratepayers and inhabitants had existed at the date of the adoption of a ratepaying Parliamentary franchise. Did he wish to make an exception in favour of non-ratepaying women and children only in the case of the proposed prohibitory liquor selling vote? He (Dr. Cameron) maintained that up to that point in the debate not one word had been said against the principle of the Bill, which was whether the power to control the liquor traffic in the different localities should be vested in a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Scourfield) had pointed out the great danger that might arise from hasty and irritating legislation, and the safe-guards which were adopted by Parliament with the view of preventing the snatching of a majority; but there was no analogy between the two cases, because in one case a bare majority was sufficient to carry a given measure, whereas in the other a majority
  20
  of two-thirds was necessary. The hon. Member for Leeds had found fault with the marginal notes of the Bill; but the marginal notes did not affect the principle of the Bill, and mere objections to them were no justification for opposing the second reading of the measure. Nor did it seem to him that the proposal to permit ratepayers to rescind the Act, if they so desired, after it had been in operation for three years in any locality, was a vital principle. Then, they had been told that if the Bill passed, it would fail. If it failed, however, and became a dead letter, it could not do any harm. The statement that the adoption of the measure—a measure which would be a dead letter unless two-thirds of the ratepayers of any district voted for its adoption—would bring about a revolution in the country, showed how very farfetched were some of the arguments against the Bill. They had been favoured with quotations from a speech on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). There was no man in the House who had a higher respect for the right hon. Gentleman than he had, and no man who was inclined to pay greater deference to his opinions; but it seemed to him that, in arguing against this Bill on constitutional grounds, the right hon. Gentleman had not "a leg to stand upon." The Constitution of this country was exactly what the last Act of Parliament made it; and were this Bill to become law to-morrow, it would be no less constitutional than the Ballot Act, or the system of compulsory education. Nor was the power to prevent the erection of public-houses considered so sacred a thing at present that it was entrusted to no one. They all knew that in granting building leases landowners frequently stipulated that public-houses should not be erected. Many owners of property, too, prevented the erection of public-houses on their estates. Why, then, should the House fear to delegate to ratepayers a power which they had unhesitatingly entrusted to owners of property? The arguments which had been adduced as to the failure of the Maine Liquor Law, were arguments against the administration of an entirely different law in America, and not against the Bill. It seemed to him that he had answered pretty well all the objections that had been

  21
  so far urged against the Bill, and he would content himself in saying that he would have great pleasure in supporting the second reading.
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, he could corroborate the statements which had been made as to the utter futility of the Maine Liquor Law in America. It was notorious that in the hotels of the United States, people might obtain as much liquor as they desired; and in the shop windows they saw mysterious labels, bearing the word "chymicals," which meant that they might get drunk on the premises if they pleased. In fact, the prohibitive system, call it by what name they chose, had broken down in America, in Sweden, and wherever else it had been tried. He had little faith in any legislation for the repression of drunkenness. The Legislature ought to maintain order; but it would go entirely beyond its duty, if it attempted repressive legislation of the character proposed in the Bill. In checking intemperance, he wished them God speed; but any endeavour to do so by penal laws would be going against the wish of the thoughtful portion of the community. The Legislature had treated the traffic in intoxicating liquors as a monopoly, and professed to regulate it, and so far as that principle had been carried out it had been done wisely. But any proposal to go beyond that—any proposal to regulate the appetite of the people as to the quantity of intoxicating liquor they should consume, would not be tolerated, and would only lead to the increase of the very vice they desired to put down. He denied that the present Parliament had been returned on an understanding that something would be done on behalf of the licensed victuallers; all the agitation that had taken place had resulted from the proposals of the hon. Member for Carlisle and the unwise Bill introduced by the late Government in 1871. That Bill sought to place the licensed victuallers—honourable men, engaged in an honourable calling—under a ban, and to "disestablish" them in 10 years; but the present Bill would disestablish them all at once. What would be thought of a Bill which aimed at disestablishing all the solicitors, or all the pawnbrokers in the country, whose callings some people held to be mischievous. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had
  22
  once said it would be better for the country if all the publicans would emigrate; but it would be much simpler for the hon. Baronet to emigrate himself. The United Kingdom Alliance also would do a great deal more good, if the money they spent in keeping up a perpetual agitation throughout the country, were devoted to education. In his essay on "Social Progress," Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth said—
  "It would be a prosperous day in the history of the United Kingdom, when the organization and enthusiasm of the prohibition party should he directed from the fruitless effort of trying to injure a trade that was flourishing through the demoralization of the people, and were, instead, applied with equal force and influence, in demanding from Parliament such measures for improving the condition of the people as would supply them with strength to resist temptation."
  In the spirit of those remarks he entirely agreed; but he did not agree with the writer of the essay in thinking that the trade of the licensed victualler was one which flourished on the demoralization of the people. That he considered an inaccurate description of the trade. He had heard it so often said that it was the interest of the publican to promote intemperance, that he wished to give the statement a most emphatic denial, and everyone who was acquainted with the circumstances of the trade would bear him out in saying that the drunkard was the greatest enemy the publican had. With respect to the question of promoting temperance by prohibitory laws, he believed the thing impossible, and all legislation in that direction was worse than useless, since it had been proved by the examples of other countries that it was not by penal legislation they could effect such an object. The real thing to do was to raise the moral tone of the working classes—to make drunkenness as great a disgrace among them as it was regarded among the upper classes. If they exerted their efforts in that direction they would do more to put down intemperance than could be accomplished by a thousand such measures as that before the House.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I wish in a very few words to express a very strong-opinion. This Bill I look on as a wonderful effort on the part of a very small section of the community, who have created in my mind a great variety

  23
  of feelings. I have great respect for their zeal—I admire their industry; but I must beg their pardon when I say that I have a contempt for their intelligence. I look upon this measure from an independent point of view, and regard it as one which is open to all the possible objections which can be raised against any Bill. One of the great discoveries of modern times is, that we have conveyed to a small number of men, as Representatives of the people, the business of Parliament; but pass this Bill, and it will do away with that discovery. That would be its first effect; but, looking to the circumstances of the country, what else will this Bill do if carried into effect? Why, it would introduce into every small division of the country a constant system of dispute and contention. There would be no quiet in the land. There would be constant quarrels; no one would be certain what the law is; and we would introduce all this uncertainty and inquietude both into our social life and into all our commercial transactions. That is another reason why I am opposed to all legislation of this kind. Now what, let me ask, would be the other results of passing this measure? You are going to attempt to regulate the morality of the people by Act of Parliament, when you know in your heart that morality was never yet so governed; but we have all seen during the last 25 years a great change taking place in the habits of the upper classes. I recollect when I was a boy it was regarded as a showy thing—a thing, in fact, to be proud of—for a gentleman to be able to put, as it was said, three bottles under his belt—whereas in my own experience for the last 40 years, I can say that I have not seen a drunken man in a lady's drawing-room. The honest, intelligent, hardworking artizan has no drawing-room in his house; but he has his home, which is as sacred to him as his wife's drawing-room is to any Gentleman present; and I regret that it cannot yet be said that there is no drunken man nor drunken woman to be seen there. So long as that is the case he cannot claim for himself that dignified position to which he aspires of being the social equal of a gentleman. A gentleman in his system of morality considers it would be a disgrace to him to be seen drunk; but the workman does not so think, either with respect to himself or to his
  24
  class. A workman may be drunk, and not be the less regarded on that account by his fellow-workmen; and until this state of feeling is altered, there is no expectation that he can obtain that dignity to which he aspires. I have as strong an objection to drunkenness as the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has, and I have as strong a desire to see it removed. It is not, then, that we differ in our feelings, but that we differ as to the means which are best calculated to secure the object we desire. The means which he would adopt would spread dissatisfaction and discontent throughout the land; it would make the law as a thing to be looked on by the people with discontent and malice, as uncertain and inapplicable to their feelings and their wants. It would make this country cease to be what it is—a law-abiding nation. We are now, I say, a law-abiding people, but if this Bill were introduced among us, what should we see? We should see here what is to be seen in America. It is now more than half-a-century ago since I was in America, and therefore I cannot speak of my own experience, but I will tell you what I am told by my friends. They say that in the State of Maine there is no difficulty whatever in obtaining intoxicating liquors. It is to be got under various pretences. They were told, for instance, that in a particular room there was a yellow hon. which they might see for half-a-crown. Everybody knew what it meant, and having paid their money they could get as much drink as they liked. That is what takes place in America. They have found it impossible to put drunkenness down, and the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors was only made to be broken, and therefore you find that not only has the end of this legislation not been realized, but that a great deal of mischief has been done. The people have become defiant of the law. The law and they have become enemies, and thus disobedience of the law is added on to the vice of intemperance. The Maine Liquor Law is, in fact, a failure and a sham, and the people are less law-abiding than they were before. I ask, then, what is the use of bringing on this measure year after year, except it be to make the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle a bright and shining light on one Wednesday out of the 52. It goes

  25
  forth that his Bill is coming on on a particular day, and his friends come down to the House to listen to him—he is for the time the observed of all observers, and that is all. As to the good he does, nothing follows from it, except that the people of England more thoroughly understand how utterly futile and impossible it is to attempt to carry such a measure.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken has declared that he has the most profound contempt for the intelligence of those who support this Bill. Therefore, Sir, I shall not take any trouble in answering the objections of the hon. Gentleman, for I am sure that if such are his feelings, he would not listen to anything I might have to say. But I believe that the House will listen to my arguments. It always has done so on former occasions, and I am glad that on this, the custom which distinguishes the Derby day has not been adopted by the House, and that we have not adjourned for the Ascot races in the same way as we did for the Derby a short time ago, or I should have been prevented from bringing the measure forward this Session. It would appear from the state of the front Ministerial Bench, that the great bulk of Her Majesty's Ministers are at the races, and I think that I was quite right in waiting for two or three hours before delivering my speech, as my doing so, has procured for me the honour of seeing at least two right hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Government come down here and take their places who have apparently denied themselves that pleasure in their desire to hear what I have to say. I must explain the Bill to the House, because, although I have introduced it and explained it two or three times before, it was in the old House of Commons, and as there are in the present House no fewer than 240 Members who have not yet gone through the painful operation of hearing me explain the provisions of the Bill, I feel sure that I shall have the same kind attention from them as I have always had from the old Members. I am the more confident in saying this because there has been no Election of Parliament in our days during which beer has been so much the subject of conversation—I may add of consumption—as it was during the last Election. Therefore, we are all very much in-
  26
  terested in this subject. I do not know why I should have taken very much pains in preparing a speech upon this question to-day, because, in my humble opinion, during the last 10 days there have been at least 40 or 50 speeches made in this House, all of which have been very much in favour of the Permissive Bill. Every one will remember that whenever an hon. Member has got up to speak about the establishment of public-houses, and the times at which they should be opened or closed for drinking, he has, in endeavouring to come to some principle or plan for governing the opening and closing of those places, always been driven in the end to the conclusion, that the matter must somehow or other be left to the wishes of the neighbourhood, represented either by the people themselves, or by the magistrates, who may for such a purpose be taken as the representatives of the people. In fact, I should think, Sir, that the drink question is one that has been more discussed in the short Session we have already had than it has been during any three Sessions in which I have sat in this House. Why, it has come up every night in some shape or other; and whether the discussion has been in reference to the Budget, the malt tax, the education question, the opening of libraries and museums, the Factory Act Amendment Bill, or almost any other subject which has engaged attention, the debate has always branched into some talk about the drunkenness of the country and its effect upon the habits and manners of the people. We have, at the present moment, in this House no fewer than five bills—which is one above the average—all dealing with the traffic in drink; but if there has been a change in the audience whom I have the pleasure of addressing, there has also been a change in the ranks of my opponents, at least if I can call the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, an opponent, because my ancient enemy, Mr. Bruce, has departed to another and a better place where harrassed Members of Parliament are at rest, and where licensed victuallers never enter. I hope that I may say that I have not quite so formidable a foe in the present as in the late Home Secretary, because the right hon. Gentleman has of late brought forward some very startling propositions. Indeed, he has gone further than the present

  27
  Bill, for he has actually threatened the country with some dreadful measure for putting down illicit drinking in people's private houses—a proposal far stronger than that contained in any Permissive Bill or any Maine Law measures of which I have ever heard. It is not necessary for me to waste the time of the House in describing at length the horrible and awful evil which I know we all deplore, although it may be that we take different means of attacking it. I will not attempt the description, because the evil is of such a nature that it is utterly and absolutely indescribable. Neither will I go into lengthy statistics on the subject, because I know how they are treated in this House. It is well known that if any hon. Member gets hold of some borough where only three or four women have been taken up during the year, that fact is paraded before the House, and we are told that the millennium of sobriety is coming; but if I happen to state that in some large borough there have been three or four hundred more taken up, I am told that that does not bear on the question, as it only shows that the police have been a little more active than usual. I will only quote one instance, a sentence from the leading journal, which never takes the most blooming view of the state of the country, because it has no interest in doing so, and which is said to take an impartial view. That journal said not long ago,—and I wonder what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), who said that drunkenness was decreasing so rapidly, will say to this—"Drunkenness, the national vice, has increased in spite of immense efforts, and is now as bad as ever. If there is a change, it is worse than ever." [Mr. GOLDSMID: The Times is wrong.] My hon. Friend says that that is wrong; but I think that the writer in The Times knows as well as he does what is the fact. Only a few days ago The Globe newspaper, one of those organs which no doubt would describe me as a gloomy fanatic, which would describe everybody as a gloomy fanatic who, thinks that drunkenness is not a good thing—speaking of the Whitsuntide holidays said:—
  "The evil [during the Whitsuntide holidays] was simply scandalous. The return of parties from the country was attended by noise and confusion that disturbed peaceful people in all parts of London….It does not speak well for this country that so many people cannot en-
  28
  joy a holiday without having recourse to degraded forms of pleasure."
  Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that "pauperism, after all our improvements, has not been reduced; the police rates have increased; the lunacy of the country has increased during the last 25 years." Now, just think of what we have been doing during the last 25 years. This House—and I refer to all of us on both sides, whatsoever our party views may be—has really had but one object in view, and that has been to promote the prosperity and welfare of the country. During those 25 years we have worked very hard at that, and I think we have done our duty in a very large measure in that direction. Just think of the different Acts we have passed during that time for the benefit of the people. There have been the Improvement of Towns Act, the Factory Acts, Workshops Acts, Public Health Acts, Lodging-houses Acts, the Bakehouse Regulation Act, the Sanitary Acts, Local Government Acts, the Free Libraries Act, and that great measure which was passed by the late Government, the Education Act of 1870. I know I was told 10 years ago that the proper cure for the evil of drunkenness was education; and people used to say "Sit quite still and trust to education." This has often been said since I first brought the Bill into the House. Now let me ask the House what have we spent on education in this country during that time? Why, if you include the Votes for Science and Act, we have expended no less than £15,000,000. During the same period, too, there has been more zeal in the Church and among religious bodies, and more agitation in favour of temperance; and yet, notwithstanding all this, whatever my hon. Friend below me may say, the evil has not been very greatly diminished. Now, there must be some cause for this. But I do not think my hon. Friend can point out any other reason than I now suggest—namely, that during the same time we have been going on spending more money in drink, until in 1872 it appears by Returns that there was no less than £4 per head spent in intoxicating drink by every man, woman, and infant in the country. I say that when you consider how many teetotalers there are, and how many women and children who never touch a drop of drink, the sum spent in

  29
  intoxicating liquor by those who do imbibe it is simply appalling. You may say that although there is more drinking there is not more drunkenness, and here I will quote from another paper which does not approve of me—I allude to The Saturday Review—which says that "if more drink be consumed, there will be more drunkenness." "Well, that is my case. It is quite delightful to see one's case proved in this way out of the mouths of one's opponents. I maintain that the public-houses are established to promote drinking. I do not say drinking too much, but it is natural that if men are allowed to provide fellow-men with more or less drink, it will promote drinking. [" No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No." I hope they will get up when I have sat down and give their definition of what a public-house is. If they contradict me only upon their views of what the licence says, they may be right; but I say that that is not the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield talked last night in a manner which, if he meant anything, meant that the public-house was a divine institution. Well, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is content with that view there is nothing further to be said with regard to it, than that we must stick up for the public-house as a matter of religion. But it appears to me that this public-house system wherever it exists does cause the greatest possible evil. In that I am confirmed by all the ministers of religion throughout the country who say that it is the main source of pauperism, immorality, and crime. A Minister of State in Belgium had said somewhat to the same purport and has added—"The public-house interest is a great power which both political parties are afraid to meddle with, consequently the evil goes on unchecked and increasing." I am glad that such is not the state of things here, because our Government have brought in a Bill for the purpose of further regulating the traffic which has already been to a great extent controlled by the legislation which we have adopted. I may, say, Sir, that there are three schools of thought and action on this matter. First of all, there is the Free Trade school. I do not think that that school has many supporters in this House, at any rate: I know that at present there is one hon. Member who has boldly avowed himself in favour of
  30
  free trade in drink. He is a very distinguished Member I admit; I allude to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who, in speaking to his constituents—and I have heard him say the same thing in this House—said, that that was the proper way of dealing with the question. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) is not also a believer in free trade in drink; but I do not think he goes so thoroughly into it as the hon. Member for Hackney, because he stated in his speech, that he should not object to a law removing undue temptations from the people. It comes, therefore, to what is the definition of the word "undue;" and as he is only a half-and-half Free Trader, I may say that the Free Trade party in this House consists of one and a-half. I do not know whether I should go farther into this point, as the supporters of Free Trade here are so few; but I think that the Free Trade principle has been proved by the Beer Act—which we all admit to be a great curse—to have been a failure. The late Prime Minister brought in his Wine Act for the purpose of making free trade in wine. Well, the hon. Member for Leeds has said what a deal of harm that Act has done—and I quite agree with him—in making the trade in drink more free. The hon. Gentleman is really on my side, although he does not know it. The experience of all countries has proved that where you have free trade in drink it results in nothing but misery and ruin. Some one has talked about Sweden; but if he had looked closely into it he would have found that when they had free trade in Sweden it was a great evil. The next school of thinkers on the subject is the Prohibition class, which is a rather larger one than the one and-a-half class, but not so large as I could wish. They believe that if a trade be bad and injurious to the best interests of the country, it does not do to go about saying you will license it, and let a few people carry it on, but that it ought to be adopted in the interests of the public. That prohibition party do not believe that any small number of their fellow-countrymen should have the special privilege of making money by the sale of intoxicating liquor—that is to say, the liquor which produces the drunkenness so much deplored among their fellow-countrymen. I now come

  31
  to the third class, the Regulation party, which, I suppose, embraces the bulk of the hon. Members of this House. I can only say that they have had their trials. They have been trying regulation for years and years past, and yet what is the state of things going on in the country in spite of all they have done? We have had the wisdom of Parliament applied in this direction over and over again. I am afraid to say how many hundreds of Acts of Parliament there are regulating this traffic; and we have been harder at work at it of late years than ever. The late Liberal Government, the strongest we have had for many years, tried their hands at it, and most of us will remember the hot July in which we came here night after night and went into elaborate details about the Licensing Bill. That Bill has only been in force two years, and then in comes the strongest and best Tory Government we have ever had, and they have set to work to improve the law on the subject. We have had all our best Statesmen at it every Parliament for years past, and I think I am justified in saying that the regulation system is still not nearly as perfect as they wished it to be. I now come to my Amendment of the licensing system, which I will explain as well as I am able to the House. I think I can make a tolerable defence for it; but I will state how it was met not long since by a friend of mine who sympathized with me, and thought well of the Bill, but who said, "I do not think your Bill is quite practicable." I asked—"What do you object to in my Bill? What is there that is not practicable?" He replied—"I do not like the permissive part of it." I explained my reasons for thinking the permissive part of it good, and asked—"Is there anything else you object to?" "Well," he said, "I do not like the prohibitory part." I will now say why the Bill is called prohibitory, and permissive, and why I like it on both accounts. Sir, the general law is prohibitory. We live under a Maine law in this country, with certain exceptions, which I will explain. The State has said for generations past, "This trade is not safe; it is injurious to the morals, the order, and happiness of the community, and must be stopped." But in process of time exceptions have grown up, and the State has said—"We will allow the
  32
  magistrates to licence certain people to carry on this trade. We think that this will mitigate the evil, and that the trade, instead of being a curse, as the general law admits it to be, will become a blessing;" and magistrates are now permitted to grant these licences. Well, by my Permissive Bill, all I propose is that the people may be permitted to have a voice in the matter as well as the magistrates,—that the magistrates should not be permitted to establish these places if the people say "We wish to put a veto on their establishment." In short, my object in drawing this Bill is to effect a maximum of benefit with a minimum of change. I find no fault with the magistrates' discretion, and I simply say, carry on your licensing operations anywhere, where the people do not object. Consider the character of the men who apply for licences, and consider the nature of the houses. Make your inquiries as you do now; but if it should happen that there is a place where the inhabitants say "We are bettor without these drinking shops; we shall be better if they are not established, and the people will be happier—they will save more money and there will be more order—then let the people state their will and do you act upon it." It is only in such places that I say the magistrates shall not grant a licence. In fact, my Bill ought not to be called a "Permissive Bill." It ought rather to be called a "Magistrates' Relief Bill." The granting of licences is the most invidious duty they have to perform, and I am most anxious that where the people are ready for it, the magistrate should be relieved from that painful duty. And here let me say that I have felt it my duty in these remarks to confine myself to the principle of the Bill, but allusion having been made to the clauses of the Bill, I am therefore bound to touch upon them, which otherwise I should not have done. Both my hon. Friends who have spoken, the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-house), and the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), have thought it very hard that this proposal to do without public-houses should last for three years. They think that the people should be allowed every year to have their chance to reverse the vote on the magisterial grant. My answer is, that you have had trade regulation for genera-

  33
  tions past, and that if the people want prohibition, surely three years is a period short enough to give any fair trial. My hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds, who made so good-tempered and courteous a speech, and who evidently desires the benefit of the people, could not have been sincere in his deprecation of those who go to the magistrates when they are granting licences. He said the magistrates were assailed by a crowd of Good Templars, teetotalers, Permissive Bill people, and a lot of tag-rag and bob-tail of that sort. He did not use these very words, but what he said implied them. Surely, as the magistrates are empowered to grant licences for the good of the people, it is only a matter of common courtesy and common right that the people should be allowed to go to the magistrates on the subject of those licences. They go, now, as my hon. Friend states, and beg and pray that the licences may not be granted; and yet the magistrates grant them in spite of what the people say or require. Now, all I want is, that the magistrates shall have the power of informing themselves on the subject, and I think they would be glad to be so informed; but my hon. Friend thinks they would not. Magistrates have a very difficult task to perform in connection with licensing, and I make no complaint of the manner in which they exercise the powers with which they are invested. Sometimes, however, they go wrong. They are led away by feelings of affection for persons whom they have known, and very often put into public-houses old family butlers, who are not always persons of suitable character. A friend of mine told me he had had a character given him by a gentleman of a butler he was going to employ. That friend gave him a several years' character, and said that in that time, he had seen him sober once or twice. I wish to show that magistrates are sometimes unduly led away and induced to grant licences which are not wanted. Hon. Gentlemen may be aware of the efforts of a benevolent lady on behalf of the poor in the Kensington district. She set up one of those workmen's halls there, of which I approve highly, and the workmen were beginning to attend there in numbers and to improve themselves, when a publican immediately applied for a licence for a house close to the hall. All the respect-
  34
  able people in the neighbourhood got up a petition to the magistrates not to grant the licence, and the licence was refused. At the next licensing sessions in the following year, however, there was a "whip" of the magistrates, and they all came down and granted the licence. The public-house was set up, and it undid all the good the lady had been doing. That is surely a case in which the neighbourhood should have had a right to be consulted. Magistrates do not know the wants of localities, they cannot know them, and in licensing houses consequently they sometimes overdo it. In illustration of that statement, I may mention what has happened at Tarporley, in Lancashire, a small place of 1,000 inhabitants—the place where an individual was charged last winter with shooting a man at the feast. A paper I have received on the subject states that on walking down the street of which the village consists there are four houses next to each other for the sale of intoxicating liquors. Three of them are public-houses, and the fourth is a grocer's shop. Well, I think that is over-doing it. There is an excuse for it, however, as all the four houses belong to a good landlord—the Dean and Chapter of Chester Cathedral—and the parish clerk keeps one of them. Still, it would have been better if the people could have been allowed to say whether they wanted those houses or not. I have another instance to mention. A man applied for a licence before the licensing bench at Dungannon. The magistrates looked into the matter, and the man produced a letter from Lord Charlton, three months old, as evidence of his respectability and fitness. The licence was granted, and immediately afterwards there came to the magistrates a telegram stating circumstances which showed that the licence should not have been granted. They then sent for the man, and he was found at a public-house having some refreshment on the strength of his good fortune. He was brought before the bench, who cancelled the licence, but three months' afterwards granted it again. That shows that the magistrates are not the best judges of what is needful for a district, and I think things would go on much more smoothly and more satisfactorily if the people were allowed to have a voice in the all-important matter of licensing. If hon.

  35
  Gentlemen who oppose the Bill say that the interests of the dealers in drink ought to be considered before that of the public, then I have no more to say; but if you hold that their licences are to be granted for the benefit of the people, surely there can be no better tribunal than the people themselves to say whether they want them or not. In urging that proposition on the House, I am not advocating anything impracticable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester said in referring to the Bill. We know that this prohibition has answered wherever it has been tried. There are hundreds of parishes in England at the present moment which are without public-houses, and they are all the better for it; and in Ireland I know of hundreds of parishes which are notoriously thankful for the public-houses having been swept away. In Scotland, where there are the fewest public-houses, there is the least drunkenness; and where you have more you have increased drunkenness. My Bill is not intended to run counter to anybody; if it were passed to-morrow, there would be lots and lots of places where the people would not be inclined for years to put the Act in force. I quite admit that. For instance, would the people of this House ever sweep away the bar beyond that door? Certainly not. This Bill, however, is not intended for this House, but only for those places which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham alluded to in one of his recent speeches—where the public opinion is ready to carry out the law. Now, my hon. Friends always talk about America. Why cannot they talk about their own country? I have given instances of places where prohibition was doing some good in England, but they do not talk of them; they do not talk of Saltaire, where there are no public-houses; they always go to America, and when they go to America they go wrongly. Massachusetts seems to be the battle-horse to-day, at all events with the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, and anyone who heard their speeches might imagine the Permissive Bill was in operation in Massachusetts. Nothing of the sort. It is the Maine Law which is in operation there, and I agree with them that that law is a dead letter, unless you have public opinion and a police force to support it.
  36
  That is the very reason which has induced me to bring in my Bill in a permissive form; because I have watched these things narrowly, and I know that when legislation is in advance of public opinion, and you have an Executive which is unable and unwilling to carry it out, you bring about absurdities which have been described to-day. The Americans are now learning that fact, because in the Western States, and in some other States, they are adapting their legislation, and instead of having the law general and imperious, they are making it permissive in many States of the Union, with the very best results so far, as has already been shown. Then, I am told my Bill will not work; but if so, what harm will be done? I admit that the Bill, if passed, would not be adopted in all places, and I confess that it would not in many places be acted upon; but why is it that we have this bitter opposition to the measure coming from those who are interested in the drinking trade, if, as is said, it would not hurt them? [Mr. GOLDSMID said, that he was not interested in the drinking trade.] I did not say my hon. Friend was in the drinking trade. He does not look like it; but he happens to be allied with that trade on this occasion, and he cannot deny that the great opposition to the Bill comes from those who are carrying on the drinking trade. Why do they oppose it? If it will be a dead letter, it will not stop the sale of a single glass of drink. But you know as well as I do that the real thing they dread is the Permissive Bill. They feel that this is looming in the distance. I am told again, that this is a Bill that will only affect the poor. I am quite willing, if that be the case, to leave it to the poor, and to move when the Bill is in Committee, if ever it gets there, to restrict the franchise by saying that no man with more than a certain amount of money shall be allowed to vote. I will lower my franchise, and exclude all rich men; and I am quite sure the measure will be generally put in force a great deal quicker if that course is adopted. There was a suggestive remark made by Mr. Robertson Gladstone before the Committee on public-houses some years ago. He was asked—"How would free trade do in Liverpool?" and he replied—"Oh, not at all; they would establish public-houses in the

  37
  same streets occupied by the magistrates and the rich people." There is a world of meaning in that remark. The licensing system is kept up to send these places among the poor, and to protect the rich gentlemen from them. In that very town of Liverpool there was not long since an inquiry by the corporation into a sanitary matter, and the Commissioner pointedly described one street in which, he said, there was not a house in it which had not at least one drunkard, and he added that if the people in that street had their own way, they would almost unanimously sweep away all the drinking-shops in the neighbourhood. Let me hear no more, then, about the poor man. The House of Commons knows as well as I do that I speak far more for him than for anyone else. The hon. Member for Rochester said to-day, that no man of distinction or eminence had taken part in advocating this measure. I will not contradict him. I know the agitation has been confined to the poor and to the working men, and that is the very reason why I take more interest in it.
  MR. GOLDSMID: I desire to correct the hon. Baronet. What I said was, that no man of distinction or eminence in this House has ever supported the Bill except the hon. Baronet himself.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Well, I will now give the House a fact which will interest them, and which I know to be true, it having been corroborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt.) There was a village called Seghill, in the north, near New-castle-on-Tyne, where drinking prevailed. Two public-houses were in that village, and they belonged to certain colliery proprietors, who, being benevolent men, felt a wish to do away with them; but they were also anxious to do nothing that could be considered tyrannical, unjust, unfair, or unpleasant to the pitmen. So they put it to those pitmen whether they would have the houses removed or not. The pitmen voted with alacrity, and decided by an immense majority, including the votes of the drunken people, that the public-houses should be removed. It would have been rather hard on a place like that that the public-houses should have been allowed to ruin the neighbourhood against the wish of the men themselves. That is one slight detail; but there is another
  38
  nearer home. Recently, in the case of the Shaftesbury Park Estate, which is managed by working men, some rules and arrangements were drawn up for the management of the estate, and the working men themselves unanimously decided that they would not have a public-house in their neighbourhood. It may be said that the enterprising publican has a right to establish a public-house; but surely the people who live in the district are entitled to have a voice in the matter, and to say—"you shall not settle down in this neighbourhood to ruin its working people." The Shaftesbury Park Estate has made out its case, and a very strong case it is too. It is said that my Bill will only be put into force in localities where the people are already sober, and where, consequently, it will not be wanted; but I say that that is not the object of my Bill. It is not aimed at those who make money by the sale of drink. We believe that if we had this measure, one place would follow the example of another. If it failed, of course the measure would be blown upon, and other districts would not adopt the system; but, if it answered, place after place would adopt it, and thus a reform of the existing state of things would be brought about. It is like the case of the Betting Bill. We passed a Betting Bill for this country, and cleared the betting houses out of England, and then they went to Scotland; but the evil there grew to be so intolerable that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) recently brought in a Bill to clear them out of Scotland; and I saw in The Times the other day that they have gone to Paris, though the correspondent added that they would soon clear them out of Paris too. In the same way we should clear the public-houses out of one district after another, if the people liked; and, if not, things would go on just as they are. One hon. Gentleman has tried to show that this is a teetotal scheme, one essentially connected with teetotalism. I do not think it requires a man to be a teetotaler to see the evils and the poverty and crime caused by public-houses. If it is only teetotalers who can see that, they must be very superior to those who drink; but no man in his senses can avoid seeing it. Teetotalers are a good sort of people, and I no not see why they should be laughed

  39
  at so much. In being teetotalers, they are so either to benefit themselves, or to give a good example to their neighbours—both very good objects. As to one observation which fell from the hon. Member for Rochester, I object to talking about the private habits of Members of this House at all. I do not talk of what he eats and drinks, but he does talk of what I eat and drink.
  MR. GOLDSMID: I beg pardon. I never said a word about what the hon. Baronet eats or drinks. What I said was that I did not wish to invade the privacies of domestic life; but I had been informed by a friend of his that anyone who had the good fortune to go into his hospitable home would also have the good fortune to get everything good in the shape of eating and drinking.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Well, we are not discussing private houses; we are discussing public-houses. I do not not advocate the Bill on behalf of teetotalers. They are not perfect any more than other people. I know a teetotaler who keeps a public-house, and he keeps it very badly too. I have heard also of the captain of a ship who found that a great number of the men on board got drunk, and, on making inquiry, he found further that there were a lot of teetotalers in the ship, who sold their grog to the other men. Thereupon the captain changed his system. He had been flogging the drunken men for a good while; but when he made this discovery, he turned round and flogged the teetotalers. Now, Sir, I do not think I am one to toady the working man. All my life I have tried to steer clear of that most disgusting offence. I think the working man is just as full of fault and folly in his life as anyone else, and so I have told him at public meetings; but I do not think he is used very well in this House on all occasions. He is very often treated as the Uriah the Hittite of politics. He is put into the front rank and made to do all the fighting, and he gets very little reward. What I ask for him now is, only that you will let him alone—that you will not insist upon having in his midst these places which do him injury. You talk about this Bill being unconstitutional, though we have not had much of that argument to-day; but if it be unconstitutional in this country to benefit the poor, how is it in many of our colonies
  40
  abroad? Surely our working men are as much to be trusted when they are at home as they are when they go to the colonies? All I ask is, that you should not hurt the working man with temptation to excess when he does not want it, and I claim the vote of the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford, who is always talking about grandmotherly legislation on the ground that we should not treat these men as babies and children, who do not know anything of their own interests. I hope I shall see that hon. and learned Gentleman in the Lobby with me this evening. One more point. This Bill is not antagonistic to anybody's licensing scheme. Ever since I have had the honour of being here I have made a point of supporting, to the best of my ability, every Bill brought forward which tended to restrict drinking habits, from whatever side of the House it came; and I say that it is only fair that people who support my measure out-of-doors should have a chance of making a trial of that which they have been considering. You talk in this House of settling the question. How many questions have I seen settled in a short time, and how many questions have I seen unsettled again? I have seen the Reform question settled. I have seen the Irish Church question settled. I have seen the Irish land question settled. You can settle no question permanently unless you settle it on the grounds of truth and justice. It appears to me that this House is in an extraordinary position just now. I do not think we can look back upon the last week or two and feel that we have been voting in a very dignified manner. Fancy one of the first Assemblies in the world sitting up till 2 o'clock in the morning to fight about an hour or half-an-hour more for the opening or closing of public-houses. Fancy our squabbling as to whether a bona fide traveller shall go three or four miles to get drunk on Sunday. Fancy our absolutely discussing, as an hon. Friend of mine did last night, whether it is better for a man to drink hot or cold spirits and water; and our winding up the evening by attempting to decide whether the magistrates shall put down public-houses in populous or in thinly peopled districts. It strikes me that we have been making ourselves rather ridiculous, and that it would be much

  41
  better for us to do something effectual than to go on in the tinkering way that we are doing. I will not keep the House much longer. The Notice Paper to-day-presents a rather unusual appearance, because not only did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) put down a Notice of Motion for the rejection of the Bill, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) did the same. I suppose each of them felt that alone he was unequal to the task. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds thought it necessary to have such a strong ally to assist him, for I should have thought he could have done it easily himself. Some time ago I read a capital speech that the hon. Member made at a dinner of the Yorkshire Brewers' Association. Those gentlemen held high festival in Leeds last February, and my hon. Friend, who delights to be present on such occasions, was there. My hon. Friend told them that "he was not a man to be despised." He "told them honestly that he did not think he was wrong. He might not be always right, but whether he was right or wrong he was, generally speaking, so nearly right in his views, and in the expression of the views which he advocated, that very few men had been found to answer him with effect." Well, I am very glad that the House has given both my hon. Friends an attentive hearing, and I am equally obliged to it for having listened to my attempt to answer one whom it is so difficult to reply to. Now, Sir, I will not detain the House any longer. I leave the Bill on your hands to be dealt with by you as you may think best. But I will just allude to what took place last year in connection with this subject, and I will do so without treading on anyone's toes if I can help it. In previous years my Bill used to be brought forward on a Wednesday, and I do not think one great party whip was made against it. But last year, it seemed good to the Gentlemen who managed matters on the Liberal side of the House to make a strong whip against me. The two sides joined together on that occasion, and the result was, that my Bill was sent to the right-about by a larger majority than ever threw it out before. Now, I do not think that was done with a good motive. I only wish, however, to point out that in a party point of view
  42
  it did not tend to the advantage of hon. Gentlemen who now sit on this side of the House. I think the result of the Elections rather unpleasantly revealed that. I would warn hon. Gentlemen on the other side not to take the foolish course which was adopted last year. I hope the Government will leave this question an open one among their supporters. I hope they will not make a whip against me, but leave everyone at liberty to vote as he pleases. I have a claim to ask the Gentlemen who are in power to give me their assistance. They have been placed in power, as we all know very well, by the vote of working men, and are justly proud of having been placed there in that manner. I ask them most respectfully to trust the men who have trusted them. I ask them by supporting this Bill to give to those working men, in common with the inhabitants of this country generally, power in their own localities to protect themselves and their families against the greatest foe to public order, social happiness, and national prosperity that exists amongst us.
  MR. GRANTHAMsaid, he had great pleasure in thanking the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle for the able and interesting speech which he had just delivered. If, however, the hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, intended to rely on the effect of that speech for the votes of new Members, he (Mr. Grantham) was afraid that he was trusting to a broken reed, for although the speech was as able and as interesting as any that had been delivered in that House during the present Session, there was scarcely one argument in it which would induce anyone who came fresh to the question to support the second reading of the Bill. In his speech, the hon. Baronet had told them many things which were true, and many things which were new; but unfortunately those which were true were not new, and, certainly, many of those that were new were not true. He had told them that there was a great deal of drunkenness in the country, and that drunkenness was a vice and a crime; and he (Mr. Grantham), so far, quite agreed with him. But surely there were other things which were vices and crimes besides drunkenness, with regard to which no such measure as was now proposed had been adopted, or even suggested. Years ago, there was a great

  43
  deal of horse and sheep stealing in the country, but because of that did they put down the sale of horses or the keeping of sheep? No. They adopted less restrictive measures than had previously prevailed, and that was found to be the best antidote to the constant recurrence of horse and sheep stealing. Because the streets were sometimes infested with pickpockets, were the public to be prevented from wearing watches or carrying anything valuable in their pockets? And yet that was the argument the hon. Baronet had used that day. He was glad the hon. Gentleman had not followed the plan adopted by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) who preceded him, and who, in regaining his seat, ventured to assume that he had answered everything that had been said against the Bill. He (Mr. Grantham) failed to find one single answer or sound argument in that speech. Fortunately the hon. Member for Carlisle did not venture to make the same remark in reply to the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), and unless there was a good answer to that able speech, that throughout the length and breadth of the land turmoil and strife would be created by the introduction of this Bill, that House had no right to pass a Bill which would cause such annoyance and discomfort throughout the country. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had said that public-houses were established to induce people to drink, and also that magistrates had permissive power at the present time, and could permit a house to be established or prohibit it, as the case might be. He (Mr. Grantham) ventured to submit that both those propositions were untrue. Public-houses were not established to induce people to drink. They were established for the sale of what might be called "goods," in the same way that a baker's or butcher's shop was established for the sale of the commodities commonly sold in those shops; and the duty the magistrates had to perform was to see that there was a sufficient number of these shops, called public-houses, for the sale of spirituous liquors, or what were called intoxicating drinks, in the various districts over which they presided. That was the first duty the magistrates had, and they had no permissive power to exclude public-houses from any district
  44
  whatever. It was true there might be the word "may" in any Act which empowered magistrates to act on this question; but there was scarcely an hon. Member in that House who did not know that where the word "may" was used in the statutes in cases of this kind it had the same effect as "shall." That being so, wherever there was a necessity shown for the establishment of public-houses the magistrates had no option in the matter, but were obliged to allow a licence to be granted to the proper applicant for it. But when they came to the question of the excessive use of that power, he believed that the magistrates exercised the greatest discretion to prevent more houses being established than were wanted in districts from which the applications were made. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle had referred to various parts of England, and had also taken thorn from Sweden to America, to Scotland, and to Ireland, but he failed to grapple with the arguments which had been adduced that day. He seemed to forget that there was a great difference between the present day, when they were arguing upon his Bill, and the period when he first introduced it many years ago. At that time the magistrates did not exercise the power of refusing licences in the way they did now. No doubt, years ago public-houses were established much more frequently than they were required; but he ventured to say that the hon. Baronet might refer to all the records of the magistrates' courts throughout this country, and he would find that in consequence of the legislation of the last few years the magistrates were now acting in a different way from that in which they acted before. They took the greatest pains to see that no new house was licensed, unless an actual requirement was shown for it in the district; and if that were so, he did not see the use of those instances to which his hon. Friend referred when he brought forward the cuttings from various newspapers to show that in certain districts there were more houses than were required. Take the case of the village in Northumberland referred to by the hon. Baronet, where seven to one of the population were opposed to granting licences, and yet the magistrates granted licences for the sale of intoxicating drinks. He thought that in such a case the magis-

  45
  trates would, in accordance with the wishes of the people, refuse the licence unless a necessity for it had been proved, so that in this respect the hon. Baronet must have been misinformed. Why, so unwilling were magistrates as a rule to grant new licences, that 19 out of 20 applications for them were refused. If the Bill were passed, what would be the effect? Local strife and animosity would be engendered in every district where it came into operation until it was repealed. The teetotalers and Good Templars would be at constant war with the minority who suffered from the restriction, or with the majority who would not allow restriction. As to the number of Petitions in favour of the Bill, no true inference could be drawn from that, as they did not spontaneously emanate from the people; but they were sent down from London for signatures from some central organization, and were circulated by paid agitators. The school boards had caused great agitation, but this would cause more, because, while with them, there was only a question of principle involved which only a few people knew much about, this Bill affected the whole community individually and personally; it touched the tastes, feelings, and wishes of every man in the country. The two-thirds of the inhabitants of the district who imposed the restriction would every day be in conflict with the one-third to whom they had dictated. As to America, the restrictive system there was a failure. A friend of his, a barrister, who had attained the degree of a D.C.L., and entitled to be called doctor, was travelling with another friend in a district where the Maine Law was in operation, and both wishing for brandy and water, the former, on arriving at the hotel, said he was a doctor, and had ordered his friend some stimulant. They were at once told to go into the tea-room down stairs, where they found a room full of people taking not tea, but eau de vie. Soon after, a waiter looked into the room, and said that an invalid gentleman had just arrived, and, hearing there was a doctor in the hotel, wished to consult him, and was outside the room. Before my friend could make up his mind what to say, the invalid introduced himself into the room, and imagine the astonishment of the D.C.L., on seeing the Judge of Assize, before whom he had been, and before whom he was again going to practise.
  46
  He need scarcely add that the only medicine required by the invalid was that which had been previously prescribed for the other occupants of the room. So much for the American system. The hon. Baronet's measure was altogether impracticable, and he (Mr. Grantham) would therefore oppose it.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that in too many instances, drunkenness was not looked upon by working men with that detestation that it should be; but he was happy to tell the House that owing to the influences of education, a very great change had come over the feelings and habits of a large portion of the working men of the country during the last 15 or 20 years. He believed the hon. and learned Member had not had an opportunity of mingling with those men as he (Mr. Macdonald) had had, and therefore that it was not his intention to say anything against the men. What he had stated arose from a want of knowledge of the true facts. He (Mr. Macdonald) had no hesitation in saying that a large proportion of the working men of this country looked upon the crime of drunkenness with quite as much distaste as hon. Members within the walls of that House did. And now as regarded the Bill itself. If it proposed to destroy the use of intoxicating liquors altogether, or to prohibit them in such a way that it would be almost impossible for drinkers to reach them, he should hesitate very strongly before he opposed such a measure, considering the amount of misery, crime, and poverty which was produced by intoxicating liquors. But the Bill did nothing of the kind. It did not attempt to destroy the drinking customs of the people, but it simply changed them from one place to another. If the Bill passed, the effect would be to drive public-houses and spirit shops from one district into another, and he demurred to the right of one portion of the community to drive an evil from their own midst into the midst of another portion of the community. They had seen that exemplified in what had occurred in Scotland. In that country there was a law which prohibited the sale of strong drinks on Sundays, unless in the hotels. The result of that law was, that persons who desired to have strong drink travelled considerable distances to hotels,

  47
  where they could be served as travellers. He spoke from experience, when he said that those who could not get drink in their own district went into others where they could obtain it. He also strongly objected to the Bill on another ground. It would lead the working men, and those who desired drink, to carry it home and consume it in their own dwellings. Now, of all things which he feared and deprecated, it was the driving of the working men, or other classes, to private drinking, or drinking in their own houses, where they could be seen by the children and the females of the household. Reference had been made to the Maine Liquor Law, and he could say from experience that it was a failure. The persons in the places where the sale of liquor was prohibited simply passed over the boundary line, where they could procure everything they wanted in enormous quantities, just the same as they could do in Scotland. ["No, no!"] He repeated that he was stating matters founded upon personal observation. No amount of repressive laws would change the habits and tastes of the great body of the people. If that House would give its attention to getting for the people more comfortable homes, securing for them greater facilities for visiting museums of Art and Science, and if they would load the people upward by education of that description, he had no doubt they would produce infinitely more effect in a shorter period than by all the Bills which could be introduced either for restraining or regulating the drinking customs of the country. He strongly opposed the measure.
  MR. SULLIVAN: There never was yet a reformer who was not told that he had begun at the wrong end. If he be an educationalist, he is told to trust to religious influences. If he attempt to deal with religious difficulties, he is told to provide the people with Sabbath recreation. If he attempt to provide Sabbath recreation, he is abjured to provide better homes. If he endeavour to provide better homes, he is told that if drink enters there all efforts are vain. It seems to me that most of this discussion on the part of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken against the Bill has been wide of the mark, and that hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill are in the most illogical position. I have not heard one who has manfully faced
  48
  the logical conclusions of his argument. If, for instance, the Japanese Ambassador had been in the gallery and heard the arguments of the hon. Members for Leeds and Rochester, and nothing more, he might have returned to Japan and abjured the people of that country to pass no laws for restricting the sale of drink, because in the House of Commons he had been told that the direst evils would flow from any attempt to prevent a man from obtaining as much drink as he required. That is the logical position of the hon. Member for Leeds. Will he face the position which he creates by his own argument? He spoke of the dreadful evils which would accrue to human life through a man needing a glass of brandy and not having it at hand; but all these evils that present themselves to his mind as too dreadful to contemplate seem to be no evils at all at 31 minutes past 11. If the evil be an evil at all, it is none the less for existing after the statutory hour for the closing of public-houses. Am I to listen to the pitiful case made for the man who wants his glass of beer, while hon. Members who paint the danger refuse to liberate the trade from its restraints? There is no logical resting-place between Free Trade in alcoholic drink and committing its regulation to the community for whose benefit it is pretended it ought to exist. I challenge hon. Members to show me a sure resting-place between these two positions. Either the trade has a right to exist at 31 minutes past 11 as well as 29 minutes past, or it has not. If I am to be told that the interests of society, peace, good order, morality, and the safety of the community demand that the trade should not be free, but should be regulated in order to meet the requirements of the community, what, I ask, is to be the measure or standard by which we can ascertain what the requirements of the community are? Now, every speech made here to-day against the Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle has been one against the vice of intemperance; and I for one have not the slightest desire to enter into the difficulties which surround such an enterprise as that in which the hon. Member is leading the party of the future; but this vice of intemperance is an evil to which no eye can be closed, and I would ask what is the testimony upon which this House usually legislates upon any other ques-

  49
  tion? If you concern yourselves with the necessity for legislating for the repression of crime, will you not take the testimony of the Judges of the land; will you not take the testimony of all who are independent and who interest themselves in the well-being of the community at large? Will you not take the experience of the police authorities, of clergymen of all denominations, and of those philanthropists who have no personal interest to serve, and who sacrifice every other consideration to public principle? These classes say that society is permeated with a dreadful poison, but I will not stop to discuss the fact that it it extremely difficult to deal with the evil. It is an evil which has descended to us from bygone generations, and which, no doubt, in the minds of many, has been looked upon in itself as a harmless and agreeable social custom. The evil is entwined in the social and domestic life of the nation; it has grown up out of the hospitable usages of society; and therefore it is that I feel if we desire to see another generation grow up more free than we are from the evils of this habit, we must set to work at once and stamp it out. Such a change, however, must be cautiously approached, and the existing state of things tenderly dealt with. I can perfectly understand that any attempt to limit the drinking customs of this country in the highhanded and wholesale manner suggested by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) will fail. He will vote against the Bill because it does not go far enough; because it does not, in an arbitrary and unconstitutional manner, invade the domestic circle, search the cupboard of the working man, pry into the jar contained in the poor man's home, and see whether or not they contain alcoholic drink. That is what I understand to be the proposition of the hon. Member for Stafford.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not wish to apply my remarks to the working man, but to the entire community, and have not spoken exceptionally of the working man.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman had done so—["Oh!"]—and I abide by what I did say. If the hon. Member proposes a penal law of this kind forbidding alcoholic drinks upon any premises, that, I maintain, involves an invasion of the do-
  50
  mestic circle, and will excite such a storm of indignation that the hon. Member will be utterly unable to withstand, and yet it is because the Bill does not go to that length that the hon. Member will oppose it. I shall be curious to see how those who say the Bill does not go far enough and those who declare it goes too far will agree in the same Lobby. I consider that hon. Members who have spoken have failed to grapple fairly with the question before the House, because not a single argument has been adduced against the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle which could not as fairly be adduced against the licensing system. Now let us deal fairly with the facts of the present system; let us look at a district, whether large or small, where the prohibitory system exists. Take, for instance, the City of Dublin. "We have the prohibitory system in existence in Merrion Square. No public-house is allowed to exist in that district, simply because the inhabitants are opposed to them. But suppose Merrion Square to be inhabited by working men, and they desired to be free from temptation, would their votes be attended to? The opponents of this measure seem to me to proceed on the most illogical assumption that any minority in the land, no matter how small, has a moral right to have as many public-houses in a district as they choose. They also say that the system of prohibition is one which is foreign to this country; and that if it applied in one district, it would not apply to another, which would enable people still to obtain drink; but it does not strike them that while some people will go three miles to obtain it, others would not travel half a mile for a similar purpose. The question will not bear arguing upon sound, logical principles, between free trade on the one hand, or prohibition, if the people think fit, on the other. We have heard a great deal about the terrible evils that would ensue if the Bill passed, but a great change of this description is always to bring on the Deluge. Hon. Members have also endeavoured to amuse us by stating how the laws would be evaded. I see nothing amusing in that; and if laws are not to be passed, because they will be evaded, I would ask the House to look at the great metropolis and say how many Acts of Parliament exist which are not set at defiance. We have passed Acts of Parliament to put

  51
  down adulteration; yet everyone knows that in almost every article adulteration, more or less, exists. These arguments will not hold for a single moment. And, now, I have a word or two to say on the subject of America, about which a great deal has been said. I know a little about that country, and I would remind hon. Members that in dealing with the United States they must not look at it as though they were dealing with a single country, because the interests are as varied as are those of France, Austria, and England. In the case of America, we have to deal with an aggregated number of States, which are as different in their organization as can possibly be conceived. It is true that in some parts the Maine Liquor Law has been tried, and that is a measure against which I would vote as long as I had the privilege of doing so. The permissive prohibitory principle is, however, rapidly advancing in the country, because it is better suited to the circumstances of the case. It is at the same time true that it has failed in certain districts; but the reason is, that if we attempt to force the measure on a district, the opinion of which is not in its favour, it will fail. We must not attempt to go before public opinion, because if we do legislation will be a failure. But we have no right to lag behind that opinion, and a measure which allows each district to regulate the liquor traffic, and to say what it requires for its own convenience, cannot fail to work well. Public opinion must go before and prepare the way for the adoption of such a scheme, and if it is successfully adopted, my experience is that the results are so satisfactory that no effort will be made to resort to the original plan. The hon. Member for Stafford tells us he has been to America. So have I; and I challenge him to tell me of any place, whether under the banner of England or the Stars and Stripes, where the permissive principle has been adopted by the voice of the community, and where subsequently the privilege has been surrendered. In Australia, in British North America, and in the United States, that popular power has never been relinquished, and why should we in England deny the people a voice in what concerns them so intimately? Hon. Gentlemen spoke of these public-houses as though they were an absolute necessity of human life; but I will mention a country which is not so
  52
  far off as Illinois or Iowa, in which prohibition has been tried, and I will tell the House what the result of that trial has been, because one experiment is worth ten thousand conjectures. In my own country, in the county of Tyrone, over 60 square miles, upon which 10,000 people live, have been for several years free from this traffic. It happened that a gentleman who owned an estate in that county was also the agent of other estates, and in these joint capacities he tried the experiment whether men—especially Irishmen—could do without places for the sale of intoxicating drink. He refused to grant any leases for public-houses, and in a few years after he had come to that determination, he had cleared from 60 to 65 square miles of all such establishments. For a time, I have no doubt, my countrymen must have very much missed their Saturday's enjoyment, and no doubt murmured at it; they missed their convivial clinking of glasses and customary cracking of heads. I am not informed on that subject, but after the system had been put into operation for a while the evils which previously existed disappeared; and, on the other hand, I can truly say that none of the calamities predicted by hon. Members who oppose the Bill have occurred, neither has the expected establishment of spirit-shops in the bordering districts taken place. It may be true, that for the first six months a number of the inhabitants of this district did walk to neighbouring villages to get their drink; but, as the distance was something like five miles, in the space of about 18 months, only one or two persons cared to walk that distance for it, and what does that prove but that hon. Members are arguing upon a totally false assumption? The experiment has shown that by removing temptation from the path of the people, you would soon find results similar to those which took place in the county of Tyrone. Not 2 percent of the population would care to walk five miles to obtain drink. It may be said that that was a rural district; and I admit it. Hon. Members might argue that it would not work in a town population, but I believe that it would work in towns just as well as in rural districts. I have also had experience of this. In Ireland there is a town called Bessbrook, with a population of over 4,000 inhabitants, and there never has been a public-house in it. The proprietor of that town from

  53
  the beginning refused to allow drinking shops. He told the people that they might walk to Newry—that is some four or five miles—if they wished to buy liquor. The consequence was, that at first the drunkards did walk to Newry; but latterly a generation has grown up which cares nothing for drink, and as a result, the face of a policeman is nearly unknown at Bessbrook. But what are the fiscal results of the experiment in Bessbrook and Tyrone? The police barracks were removed from the Tyrone district, because they were useless, and not a single policeman exists on the territory, nor have they ever had a policeman in Bessbrook; whilst the rates in the Tyrone district have come down from an average of 2s. to 9d. and 10 d. in the pound. Is not this an answer to the mere anticipations we have heard indulged in? I trust, when I have said this, that the House will consider I have contributed something substantial to the argument, and I would ask hon. Members to watch the course followed in relation to this question wherever new communities are established. I know several instances in which territories have been secured for colonization by men who have had no philanthropic desire—men who have no care for temperance, and who, as a simple matter of business sagacity, had arrived at the conclusion that the value of the estate would be enhanced by founding it on the principles of prohibition. There are two or three such colonies in British North America, and one in the State of New Jersey, and the true solution of the difficulty is to treat existing social usages and existing financial interests tenderly, and to give a chance for a new generation to grow up under a different state of affairs. We are every day committing ourselves more and more to the sound principle of local option, and we shall do well to trust the people in this question, with the conviction that the working classes will do better by any moral reformation they may effect for themselves than by anything that is forced upon them by the upper classes.
  MR. D. DAVIES: I shall not go outside my own experience in what I have to say; but I have the advantage of knowing as much about the working classes as any hon. Member in this House. I feel the difficulty which the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) put us in in interfering with this question, but
  54
  I well know the effect of the present system. I have several times seen very excellent men killed in consequence of the habit of drunkenness, and I have been very nearly killed several times myself. But the Bill now before the House does not propose to kill anyone. Now, I wish to call the hon. Member's attention to another point in his speech. He said that it was not the business of the publican to push his trade. But I know a dozen cases where there would be no trade at all at the public-house, unless the landlord converted sober men into drinking men. I hope if I succeed in proving that to his satisfaction, that we shall be able to number him among our converts. Now, between 1859 and 1867, I made myself 170 miles of railway, and considering who I was, I think the House will agree with me that they were gigantic works for me to perform. I had many difficulties to encounter, but the heaviest of them all was, the number of public-houses that we came upon in making those railways. Those railways were constructed partly into and partly through seven counties, and I will give you my experience of the working men employed upon them. I have been rather amused since I have been in this House at the remarks of some hon. Members who profess to be so anxious to take care of the interests of the working men. They object to any interference with the liberty of the working classes, and contend that the Bill amounts to an interference. But how much beer does a working man want? I can tell the House that during the nine years I was making those railways, not 15 per cent of my men took a glass of beer once in a month. If beer was of such great importance to the working man, would he not want more than one glass a month? But when men drank, they quarrelled in their drink, and sometimes they killed their partners, sometimes they killed themselves, and sometimes they nearly killed me—for I have been very nearly killed three or four times. Those hon. Gentlemen who are so careful about working men getting their beer, appear to forget how little nutriment they can get for their money. There are hon. Gentlemen here who represent counties in which men are now fighting for 14 s. a-week wages; and if these men succeed in getting their 14 s. a-week, how much can they afford to spend in beer? and how much nutriment will be

  55
  got out of that which he does consume? We will assume for a moment that the beer has been "cooked" in the best possible way it can be—that is to say, that the very most has been got out of it, what is there that remains for the working man? We must see what it is the Government takes out of it, what the maltster takes out of it, what the brewer, and what the publican, and then we shall see that there is not much over left; for the working man. How much then does he get for his 1d. or 2d.? I ask the House solemnly—you put it solemnly from the other side that the working man must have his beer, and cannot do without his beer—how much nutriment does the working man get out of his beer? If he had. six glasses a-day for his sustenance instead of one, which is as much as he can afford out of his wages, he would not get much for his sustenance. It is said that the working man must have freedom to get his beer, otherwise he will not be able—physically—to earn his beef; but I do not think he will get much nourishment out of what he drinks to enable him to earn beef. I have the interest of the working men at heart. There is not one in this House who has the interest of the working men more at heart than I have. Last year I built 100 houses for working men, better houses than I was born in, and next year I hope to build 100 more. I am now engaged in working pits, and within seven yards of them there is a public-house which I cannot get rid of; and yet if any accident occurred in these pits in consequence of any of the men—and there are 600 or 700 of them working—having drunk too much, I should be held responsible under the present law, until I have proved that I was not guilty. I put it solemnly to this House whether that public-house ought to be allowed to remain there. As the matter stands, I must either stop the pits and throw the men out of work, or else stop the public-house, which is killing the men. ["Divide, divide!"] I regret that the Ministerial side of the House oppose my being heard on the question; but those who interrupt me know they have a very bad case, which will not bear analyzing, and therefore I leave it to their own consciences.
  MR. O'LEARY, in opposing the second reading of the Bill said, the hon. Member for Louth had said that no public-houses were allowed in Merrion
  56
  Square. But those who inhabited that square did not want public-houses, for they had good cellars of their own, and besides, there was a complete corona of public-houses around it. The promoters of the Bill said that their object was to put an end to the abuse of alcohol. It should be remembered, however, that alcohol had its use as well as its abuse, and as a medical man, he maintained that it was against the liberty of the subject to pass a prohibitory Bill, and that Bill was nothing else. There was a real value in a glass of beer to the working man, which he would explain. The working man took bread and butter and cheese for his luncheon or dinner. Well, bread took half-an-hour to assimilate, cheese an hour and a half, and butter three-quarters of an hour. But the man was wearied after several hours' work, and required some stimulant to get up that force which would enable him to resume his labour at once, and that force was supplied by a glass of beer or a small quantity of alcohol in a diluted form. He opposed the Bill, because it would deprive the working man of that which he felt to be a necessity, and also because it would invade the rights, not only of the working man, but his own and those of other people.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that after the long debate they had had upon the question he hoped that the House was now prepared to go to a division. He should himself not interpose to prevent that division for more than a few minutes. He also ventured to hope that when the question had been decided, as he trusted it soon would be decided, by the vote of the House, it would be regarded as settled, at all events for the remainder of that Parliament. He trusted it would be permitted to go to rest and that they would not have a question of that sort, which it was perfectly hopeless to expect to pass into a law, brought forward Session after Session after it had been thoroughly discussed and settled at the beginning of the Parliament, as he hoped and trusted it would be settled that afternoon. He would meet the hon. Member who introduced the Bill on his own grounds. The hon. Baronet recommended the Bill on two grounds, one because it was permissive, the other because it was prohibitory. These were the two great grounds on which he (Mr. Cross) entirely objected to the measure. He objected to it

  57
  strongly on the ground that it was permissive, because if the Preamble of the Bill were capable of being proved—and he held it was not—it would be the duty of the House to pass not a permissive, but a compulsory Bill. But he denied that the Preamble was proved, and on that ground he objected to the measure because it was prohibitory. The Preamble stated that the "common sale of intoxicating liquors was a fruitful source of crime;" but there was nothing in it whatever about the benefits derived from that sale, or the actual necessity of such liquors being sold to accommodate certain classes of Her Majesty's subjects. He must also entirely differ from the hon. Member for Louth, who seemed to think there was no medium between the drunkard and the teetotal abstainer. He would say fearlessly that there was a vast number of persons in this country who not only enjoyed, but used and used properly the very liquors which it was the object of this Bill to stop the sale of; and there was nothing more tyrannical or absurd than to attempt to deprive persons of the rational and proper use of liquor for the sake of what he was persuaded must turn out in the long run a crotchet. The Bill stated that it was expedient to confer on the ratepayers the power of prohibiting the sale of liquors. But what right had any man, or body of men, as long as he did not interfere with public order or morality, to lay down for him a rule of life? Nothing could be more inexpedient, nothing could be conceived more likely to excite ill-will and provoke disputes and quarrels among neighbours than to give the majority of any town power to pass such a resolution as was contemplated by the Bill. But if unfortunately a power of this kind was given he thought those who would be disposed to pass a prohibitory resolution ought to have some compassion on their near neighbours, whose public-houses would swarm with people who in their own town or township were deprived of their proper food and the indulgence which they had found useful. He could not conceive a more gross violation of the laws of property than this Bill would practically enforce. The loss of property would be enormous, and if the hon. Baronet did really think in any town of this country to put an absolute stop to the sale of liquors, let him come forward and pro-
  58
  pose that if the ratepayers did pass any such resolution, they should compensate those who had been injured by it. And further the hon. Baronet should hesitate before he deprived the inhabitants of any town of the power for three or four years of abrogating this prohibitory resolution, even though they should be in that state of weariness and exhaustion from their work with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had described. Lot him pause before refusing to allow them a small draught of methylated spirits to recruit their exhausted powers. He objected to the Bill because it was tyrannical and utterly unpractical, and because it would do more than anything else could to encourage breaches of the law in those places where it might be put in force. As he had said before, if the Preamble was proved, let Parliament with a high hand take the responsibility of acting on itself; but let it not do that which would involve places from one end of the country to another in endless disputes and promote discord more than anything else which could be proposed. He could assure the hon. Baronet that, like his Predecessor, he would give every opposition to the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 301: Majority 226.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for three months.

  AYES.

  Allen, W. S.

  Davies, R.

  Archdale, W. H.

  Dease, E.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Dick, F.

  Bazley, Sir T.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Downing, M'C.

  Birley, H.

  Fordyce, W. D.

  Brocklehurst, W. C.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Brogden, A.

  Grieve, J. J.

  Brown, A. H.

  Havelock, Sir H.

  Burt, T.

  Holland, S.

  Callender, W. R.

  Hughes, W. B.

  Cameron, C.

  James, W. H.

  Carter, E. M.

  Johnston, W.

  Chadwick, D.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Chaine, J.

  Laing, S.

  Close, M. C.

  Leith, J. F.

  Cole, H. T.

  Leslie, T.

  Conyngham, Lord F.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Corry, J. P.

  Lloyd, M.

  Cowen, J.

  Macgregor, D.

  Dalway, M. R.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Davies, D.

  M'Arthur, A.

  59

  M'Arthur, W.

  Shirley, S. E.

  M'Combie, W.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  M'Laren, D.

  Smith, E.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Smyth, R.

  Monck, Sir A. E.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Moore, A.

  Trevelyan, G. O.

  Morgan, G. O.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. Hill-

  Mundella, A. J.

  Verner, E. W.

  Noel, E.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  O'Clery, K.

  Whalley, G. H.

  O'Loghlen, rt. hon. Sir C. M.

  Whitwell, J.

  Whitworth, W.

  O'Neill, hon. E.

  Wilson, C.

  Potter, T. B.

  Young, A. W.

  Reed, E. J.

  Reid, R.

  TELLERS.

  Richard, H.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Richardson, T.

  Sullivan, A. M.

  NOES.

  Adam, rt. hon. W. P.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C.

  Clive, G.

  Agnew, R. V.

  Cobbett, J. M.

  Allen, Major

  Cobbold, J. P.

  Allsopp, S. C

  Cochrane, A. D. W. R. B.

  Anderson, G.

  Cole, Col. hon. H. A.

  Arkwright, A. P.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Arkwright, F.

  Collins, E.

  Arkwright, R.

  Conolly, T.

  Ashbury, J. L.

  Coope, O. E.

  Assheton, R.

  Corbett, Colonel

  Baggallay, Sir R.

  Corbett, J.

  Bagge, Sir W.

  Cordes, T.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Cowan, J.

  Ball, rt. hon. J. T.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Baring, T. C.

  Cross, rt. hon. R. A.

  Barrington, Viscount

  Cubitt, G.

  Barttelot, Colonel

  Cuninghame, Sir W.

  Bass, A.

  Cust, H. C.

  Bass, M. T.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bates, E.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Denison, C. B.

  Benyon, R.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Beresford, Colonel M.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Bolckow, H. W. F.

  Douglas, Sir G.

  Boord, T. W.

  Dowdeswell, W. E.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Dundas, J. C.

  Bourke, hon. R.

  Dyke, W. H.

  Bousfield, Major

  Dyott, Colonel R.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Earp, T.

  Bright, E.

  Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Brooks, rt. hon. M.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Bruen, H.

  Elliot, Admiral

  Brymer, W. E.

  Errington, G.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Eslington, Lord

  Campbell, C.

  Estcourt, G. B.

  Cartwright, F.

  Evans, T. W.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Cave, rt. hon. S.

  Fawcett, H.

  Cave, T.

  Feilden, H. M.

  Cawley, C. E.

  FitzGerald, rt. hn. Sir S.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Chapman, J.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W.

  Charley, W. T.

  Childers, rt. hon. H.

  Floyer, J.

  Christie, W. L.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  60

  Forster, Sir C.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Learmonth, A.

  Forsyth, W.

  Lee, Major V.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Gallwey, Sir W. P.

  Legard, Sir C.

  Galway, Viscount

  Leigh, Lt.-Col. E.

  Gardner, J. T. Agg-

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Lindsay, Col. R. L.

  Lloyd, S.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Lloyd, T. E.

  Goddard, A. L.

  Locke, J.

  Goldney, G.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Gordon, rt. hon. E. S.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Gordon, W.

  Macdonald, A.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Macduff, Viscount

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Mahon, Viscount

  Grantham, W.

  Majendie, L. A.

  Greenall, G.

  Makins, Colonel

  Greene, E.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Gregory, G. B.

  March, Earl of

  Grey, Earl de

  Marten, A. G.

  Gurney, rt. hon. R.

  Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

  Hall, A. W.

  Mellor, T. W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Milles, hon. G. W.

  Hamilton, Lord G.

  Mills, A.

  Hamond, C. F.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Hanbury, R. W.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Hankey, T.

  Montgomerie, R.

  Harcourt, Sir W. V.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Hardcastle, E.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Hardy, rt. hon. G.

  Mulholland, J.

  Hay, rt. hn. Sir J. C. D.

  Muncaster, Lord

  Heath, R.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Naghten, A. R.

  Hermon, E.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Hervey, Lord A. H.

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Hervey, Lord F.

  North, Colonel

  Heygate, W. U.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Hick, J.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  O'Gorman, P.

  Hill, T. R.

  O'Leary, W.

  Hodgson, K. D.'

  Onslow, D.

  Hodgson, W. N.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hogg, Sir T. M.

  Parker, Lt.-Col. W.

  Holford, J. P. G.

  Pateshall, E.

  Holker, J.

  Peel, A. W.

  Holms, J.

  Pell, A.

  Holms, W.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Holt, J. M.

  Peploe, Major

  Hood, Capt. hn. A. W. A. N.

  Perceval, C. G.

  Phipps, P.

  Hope, A. J. B. B.

  Pim, Captain B.

  Horsman, rt. hon. E.

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Powell, W.

  Hubbard, E.

  Power, R.

  Isaac, S.

  Praed, H. B.

  Jackson, H. M.

  Price, Captain

  Jervis, Colonel

  Puleston, J. H.

  Johnson, J. G.

  Raikes, H. C.

  Johnstone, H.

  Ramsay, J.

  Johnstone, Sir H.

  Read, C. S.

  Jones, J.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Karslake, Sir J.

  Ridley, M. W.

  Kennard, Colonel

  Ripley, H. W.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Roebuck, J. A.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E.

  Russell, Lord A.

  St. Aubyn, Sir J.

  Knight, F. W.

  Salt, T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Samuda, J. D'A.

  Knowles, T.

  Sanderson, T. K.

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Sandford, G. M. W.

  Laird, J.

  Sandon, Viscount

  61

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Tennant, R.

  Scott, M. D.

  Tollemaehe, W. F.

  Sconrfield, J. H.

  Torr, J.

  Seely, C.

  Tremayne, J.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Turner, C.

  Turnor, E.

  Shaw, W.

  Vance, J.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Wait, W. K.

  Sherriff, A. C.

  Walker, T. E.

  Shute, General

  Walter, J.

  Sidebottom, T. H.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Simon, Mr. Serjeant

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Smith, A.

  Welby, W. E.

  Smith, F. C.

  Wells, E.

  Smith, S. G.

  Wethered, T. O.

  Smith, W. H.

  Whithread, S.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Whitelaw, A.

  Somerset, Lord H. R. C.

  Williams, Sir F. M.

  Spinks, Mr. Serjeant

  Williams, W.

  Stanford, V. F. Benett-

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Stanhope, W. T. W. S.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Stanley, hon. F.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Starkey, L. R.

  Yeaman, J.

  Starkie, J. P. C.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Steere, L.

  Swanston, A.

  TELLERS.

  Talhot, J. G.

  Goldsmid, J.

  Taylor, D.

  Wheelhouse, W. S. J.

RABBITS BILL— [BILL 100.]
(Mr. Pell, Sir Wyndham Anstruther, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Montgomerie.)
RABBITS BILL— [BILL 100.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. PELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was in the main a declaratory Bill, and referred only to the pursuit or trespass on land for rabbits during the day time, and did not at all meddle with night poaching. The Amendment he proposed would bestow as severe a punishment on the poacher as any awarded by the old law, and the owner of cultivated lands would be at least in as good a position as he was before. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the setting aside of grounds suitable for the breeding of these creatures if it was the desire of the owner; and if he did so, he would receive a protection of a higher order, accompanied with penalties for breach of the law of a more serious character than any contained in the Game Laws proper, and those laws he let alone. He had introduced this Bill as an honest endeavour to get rid of a difficult question, and if it were carried it would at once dispose of that question. It would take the rabbits out of the Game Laws, create a law of trespass to protect the
  62
  owner from persons who went in pursuit of these animals, and it would do that without interfering with the law of contract between landlord and tenant. When the Bill got into Committee he would propose that the penalties for trespass in pursuit of rabbits during the clay should be increased from 5s., as named in the Bill, to 10 s. for the first offence, and 40 s. for second offences. The fines would be recoverable by the occupier of the land. The provisions of the Bill followed the recommendations of the Select Committee, and his great object in proposing it, as he had said, was to disentangle the game question of rabbits altogether, and to enact a law of trespass sufficient to protect the occupiers of land from injury arising from the pursuit of rabbits. The question of game might afterwards be more easily dealt with in a separate measure. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pell)
  MR. M'COMBIE: I beg to move the rejection of the Bill. As I have been sent to this House to speak for the tenant-farmers, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words as to this Bill. Speaking for them, I must say that this is the most extraordinary, the most childish, the most insignificant, the most insulting to tenant-farmers of any Bill that has ever been introduced to this House. The former Government left our grievances as they found them, and if this is a specimen of what we may expect from the other side of the House, we will undergo the same fate by the present Government. The tenant-farmers have never been represented in this House, nor will they be ever represented so long as they send the sons of Dukes, the sons of Lords, and large landed proprietors who wish to keep the power in their own hands, and have represented their own interests and not the interests of the tenant-farmers. If this should be denied, will any hon. Member point out any measure that has passed this House but what has been for the advantage of the proprietor, and not for the advantage of the tenant? I do not object to the sons of Dukes and Lords or large landed proprietors sitting in this House, if they would represent

  63
  the interests of their constituents, but they have represented their own interests. I do not object to the return of my young and noble Friend the Member for Morayshire. I rejoice at it; and why? because he has nailed his colours to the mast to redress the grievances of the tenant-farmers. Why do the tenant-farmers send Members here who misrepresent them? Because they are afraid their proprietors may not renew their leases. But if tenant-farmers would only throw off the yoke of bondage as we have done in Aberdeenshire, there would be no fear of getting a renewal of our leases. Why, Sir, the proprietors can have no choice; they must renew the leases, and to the very men who voted contrary, perhaps, to their political views, otherwise they would have no tenants at all. I trust the tenant-farmers in other counties will follow the example of Aberdeenshire, Forfarshire, Kincardineshire, Linlithgowshire, and Morayshire, and then, and not till then, will their grievances be redressed. No doubt, the late Government left our grievances as they found them, but we are now offered from the other side of the House this now famous Rabbit Bill—the only Bill. But will tenant-farmers accept it? I most emphatically, speaking for the tenant-farmers, say no. We can kill as many rabbits as we please at present, in spite of our landlords. We will have nothing to do with it. We throw it and all such insulting Bills to the four winds of heaven. I am not surprised at the result of the late elections in the counties in Scotland. I am only surprised that the Liberals have retained so many of them. There is one consolation to the tenant-farmers, that the present Government cannot do less for them than the former. They left the Game Laws as they found them; they left the Law of Hypothec as they found it; they gave us no assistance with the Labourers' Cottage Bill; but they saddled us with the gun tax, the shepherd's dog tax, the horse tax in driving materials to our roads, and even taxed the carts driving the old and infirm to Church. To that must be entirely attributed the defection of the Scotch counties, and not to the organization of the Tories. The poor tenant-farmers were sold by the late, and I fear will undergo the same fate with the present, Government. I often
  64
  told Members of the late Government of the feeling of the Scotch farmers against them; but they were deaf to my remonstrances. If they had listened to my advice, they would not have been sitting on the Opposition benches here to-day. If I could presume to tender advice to the present Government, if they wish to remain in office, I would say, totally abolish the Game Laws, do away with the Law of Hypothec, entail and primogeniture, gun tax, shepherd's dog tax, give security to the tenant for unexhausted manures, improvements, and necessary farm buildings. If our grievances are redressed, we do not care so much from what quarter it may come.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. M'Combie.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he also opposed the Bill, because it could not be accepted by the tenant-farmers of Scotland. They had long complained of their grievances, and as a Liberal he deeply regretted that the late Government did not attempt to deal with them. He was anxious to see the game grievance which the tenant-farmers of Scotland had so long, so earnestly, and with such fairness tried to remove, set at rest. It created ill-will between those who ought to be on friendly terms. It caused heart-burnings to all wealthy landlords selling game reared on the crops of farmers.
  And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

APOTHECARIES LICENCES BILL.
Acts read; considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law with reference to the licensing and practice of Apothecaries, Chemists, and Druggists.
Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to he brought in by Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. BLENNER-HASSETT, and Mr. BUTT.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.