Sitting of 12 August 1882

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [August 11] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [August 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*.
Second Reading—India (Home Charges Arrears) [272]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall) [95]; Cruelty to Animals [206] [House counted out].
Committee—Fishery Board (Scotland) [240]—R.P.
Third Reading—Public Works Loans* [269], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED DISCONTENT.
  Mr. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is true, as reported in the morning papers of 11th instant, that the Government are prepared to concede the demands of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if this is incorrectly stated, whether he will state the present position between the men and the constituted authorities?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): I have to state that on August 6 His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant instructed the Inspector General of Constabulary to communicate to the Force His Excellency's serious displeasure at the agitation then going on, and to inform the members of the Force that, as long as that agitation continued, the Government refused to entertain any representations that might be made. A Circular to that effect was issued on Monday, and on Tuesday the agitation ceased at Limerick, where it first began. On Wednesday and Thursday Reports in answer to the Circular were received from all stations, showing that the movement ceased to exist. On Thursday a Circular was sent expressing His Excellency's satisfaction at this result, and his opinion that the conduct of the Force in this respect was worthy of its high reputation. His Excellency added that the prompt cessation

  1627
  of the agitation not only relieved him from the necessity of taking measures to stop it, but also enabled him at once to take into consideration the representations he had received. Those representations embraced so many points lying beyond the scope of the Committee recently appointed to consider the question of allowances that His Excellency had determined to appoint another Committee to inquire into and to take evidence upon the whole subject. When that Committee reported, His Excellency's decision must be taken as final.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Did the men withdraw their demands unconditionally?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Unconditionally.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether he could state the precise nature of the Amendments affecting the principle of this Bill to which the Government would agree; and, if further powers were to be given to the Department of Public Works, whether any schemes sanctioned by them would be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that the House would certainly have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on every such scheme. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had given Notice of an Amendment empowering the Government to take the control, by Order in Council, of other monuments besides those mentioned in the Schedule of the Bill, and Orders in Council were, of course, laid upon both Houses of Parliament. The Committee on the Bill would be taken on Monday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [11th August] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Resolution 5.
  "That a Bum, not exceeding £3,043,300, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries
  1628
  and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. SCHREIBER: Having come down to this House at 7 o'clock last evening, as I supposed, to dine, and to watch the Post Office Vote into the small hours of the morning, I was not a little surprised on my arrival to find that it had already been taken—taken without discussion, and taken—if I am not misinformed—in the absence of the Postmaster General; and as I believe, Sir, that it would cause much disappointment out-of-doors if so important a Vote should be allowed to pass in silence, I now ask the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations which, under other circumstances, I should have wished to make in Committee. Now, Sir, as we all know, it is not a very gracious act to "look a gift horse in the mouth;" and that, I fear, is what I have to do. Hon. Members, then, will be aware, from what has passed in this House, if in no other way, that some 15 months ago the letter carriers of the United Kingdom forwarded Memorials to the Postmaster General alleging sundry grievances and asking for redress. Those Memorials remained without an answer, and (unless I am misinformed) without acknowledgment, till the middle of last month, when a public meeting was on the very point of being held to protest against the delay. Then, and not before, the right hon. Gentleman "capitulated," and the Financial Secretary swearing "He would ne'er consent, consented." Between that date and this, Sir, the answer of the Postmaster General has been under the consideration of the men; and, so far as it is understood, I am bound to say that it has been received with a perfect chorus of dissatisfaction and disappointment. And for this the right hon. Gentleman has, to a large extent, himself to blame. For what has been his constant answer to my Questions in this House? Why, that the matter was a large one, and that it required time. This answer, so often repeated, coupled with the known ability of the right hon. Gentleman, led the men to expect from him a comprehensive scheme dealing with the whole case as presented in their Memorials. Instead of that—to take an example—his answer to the Metropolitan letter

  1629
  carriers deals with one point, and one point only, the increase of their pay. Not one word, Sir, on the burning question of "overtime;" not one word about a re-arrangement of their duties and their hours; not one word about an increase in the number of good conduct stripes; not one word on the subject of open promotion; not one word about emoluments being reckoned for pensions; and not one word about, receiving a deputation of the Memorialists. It was the delay, Sir, of the Postmaster General which led the men to think that the official "mountain" was "in labour" upon all these points, and he should be the last to complain if they are disappointed at the "ridiculous mouse" of a scheme, which only makes a small increase in their salaries. And that is not all. In the matter of salaries the letter carriers fail to see why they are to be less liberally treated than the "sorters," for whom in the month of March the Postmaster General brought in a Supplementary Estimate for £80,000, increasing their wages by 2s. a-week at one end of the scale, by 5s. a-week at the other, and paying them "back money" to the 1st of April, 1881. Now, I do not stand here, Sir, to disparage the claims of the "sorters," who, no doubt, deserve all that they have got, and more. Non equidem invideo; miror magis. But the Postmaster General must not be surprised if the letter carriers claim to be treated with corresponding liberality. The right hon. Gentleman will say—"How am I to get the money?" I will tell him. From the net earnings of the Post Office, which was never intended to be a source of revenue, till the interest and the convenience of the public had been first consulted. What, then, is the interest of the public in this matter of the letter carriers? That their letters should come to them by the hands of men, whose pay has some relation to the laborious and responsible duties which they perform, and whose circumstances shall be such as to place them above the temptations connected with the discharge of those duties. I do not see the Financial Secretary in his place; if I did, I should like to read to him an extract from the evidence of Sir Rowland Hill, stating his view of what he called "the principle of the Post Office." It maybe desirable, however, to place the Postmaster Gene-
  1630
  ral in possession of the passage, so that he may bear it in mind when next he finds any difficulty with the Treasury. This was the motto on the title page of Sir Rowland Hill's pamphlet of 1837—
  "The principle of the Post Office at its establishment, as is distinctly laid down in the 12 Charles II., was to afford advantage to trade and commerce. The direct revenue to be derived from the Post Office was not the primary consideration."
  Again, when Sir Rowland—then Mr. Hill—was under examination before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Postage, in the year 1843, Mr. Hawes asked him—
  "Did you adopt the penny rate with the object of ultimately producing a larger amount of net revenue than could be, in your opinion, expected from a higher rate?"
  Answer—
  "No; my object was not to obtain the greatest possible amount of money profit from the Post Office, but to give the greatest amount of convenience to the public which could be obtained without any great permanent sacrifice of revenue as it then stood. It has been thought by Lord Ashburton, Lord Sandon, and Mr. J. S. Lloyd, whose authority on such subjects is entitled to great respect, that the Post Office cannot be legitimately made a source of revenue at all; and I have Lord Lowther's authority for saying that, in the original institution of the Post Office, revenue scarcely formed any part of the object in view."
  With the public there will be no difficulty in the matter. Nothing is more certain than that the public wishes to see these men well paid—witness the large gratuities with which—at Christmas—it already ekes out their insufficient pay. When, therefore, the inevitable Supplementary Estimate is brought in, I hope it will be for an adequate amount. Above all, do not let these claims be trifled with because they have been urged with moderation. During the recent long trial of their patience, the conduct of the letter carriers has been above all praise, and has established for them a new claim on the respect and sympathy of the public. It would be fatal they should think that at the present day not to be disorderly is not to get redress. Dangerous examples, under the present Government, dangerous examples surround these men on every side; and, knowing how much they have been tried, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with their claims, not only to be wise, but to be wise in time.
  MR. WARTONremarked that, not only had the Post Office Vote been passed hurriedly, without discussion, and in the absence of the Postmaster General, but the Vote for the Packet Service would have been passed in a similar manner if the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had not rushed to his place, and caught the Chairman's eye before the Vote could be put. It was not till then that the other Members of the Government who were in attendance conceived it their duty to send for the Postmaster General. There was one question which he desired to put to the right hon. Gentleman upon the question of registered letters, in reference to which a pledge had been given to him last year. In redemption of that pledge the charge for registration had been reduced from 4d. to 3d., and it was now nominally 2¼d., including the cost of the stamped envelope; but practically the cost was 2½d. He appealed to the Government to sacrifice the additional 1d., and to give for 2d. the envelope which would carry a registered letter.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he was disposed generally to agree with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Schreiber) as to the hurried manner in which the Government disposed of Supply, and, indeed, carried on the general Business of the country. He would not, however, pursue that subject; but he wished to put a question to the Postmaster General in regard to a matter concerning the convenience of the public—namely, whether an arrangement could not be made for the purpose of facilitating the postage of letters, not only at the principal, but at the smaller railway stations, in accordance with the plan universally followed in all other civilized countries, and especially in France, Italy, and Germany. In France, in all the railway stations there were letter boxes, in which persons up to the last moment of the departure of the trains could post letters. A few years ago, when the noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) was Postmaster General, he (Mr. Bentinck) had raised this question, because there was not at that time even the means of posting a letter in the Post Office van. The noble Marquess made the concession asked for, and for some years letters were allowed to be posted in the travelling vans under
  1632
  certain circumstances by the payment of a considerable extra fee; but no notice was given to the public, so that they were not able to avail themselves generally of the privilege. The privilege itself was extended when his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) was at the head of the Post Office, and to some extent it existed still. At the present moment the plan adopted was to place a pillar post or letter box at the principal railway stations; but the arrangements for the collection of letters were simply idiotic. The letters themselves were collected at the stations and sent to the Post Office, which might be half-a-mile distant, and sorted there, instead of being sorted at once in the travelling van. He hoped the Postmaster General would consider the subject, and adopt some more satisfactory system. It seemed to him that what could be done in France, Italy, and Germany, could also be done in England; and as there was a progressive Government the people ought to have the advantage of their enterprize.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, he wished to bear his testimony to the excellent manner in which the Postmaster General had discharged the duties of his Office—a manner he was justified in saying that had won golden opinions all over the country. It was well known to all Members of the House of Commons that various Members in the House had in their gift various small appointments in the Post Office in the Provinces, and he wished to say that he had the greatest difficulty in getting people to accept these appointments on account of the small pay. The pay of such work was so low that those who accepted the appointments were mostly very old men, who did not do credit to the Postal Service. In this way the whole Postal Service of the country was made to suffer, and he would be very pleased if his right hon. Friend could induce the Treasury to increase the pay of these men.
  MR. FAWCETTdenied that there was any intention on the part of the Government to hurry the Post Office Votes through the Committee. They had come on in the ordinary course, and on two of them there had been considerable discussion. As to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport

  1633
  (Mr. Warton), he would make inquiry and see whether or not that suggestion could be carried out. In regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), he was glad to be able to tell him that he had already given instructions which he hoped would meet his views. The Post Office was going, as an experiment, to have a letter-box attached to certain mail trains, in which letters could be posted while the train was en route at any station. A small extra fee would be charged, because it would be necessary to discourage the posting of letters in these boxes as far as possible. The reason was this—that if a great number of letters were posted in this way it would be impossible to have them properly sorted; but he believed the arrangements they were now carrying out would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and if the experiment was successful they would extend it. There was one observation made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) towards the close of his remarks that he thought would have a very prejudicial effect all over the country on the Public Service. The hon. Member said that, in the face of a public meeting announced to be held by the letter carriers, the Treasury and the Post Office suddenly capitulated. If there was any meaning in the expression "suddenly capitulated," it must mean that they yielded to intimidation. Unless the hon. Member had some very clear evidence to substantiate that statement, it was a very grave charge, that ought not lightly to have been brought against a Public Department. He could assure the hon. Member, so far from capitulating, the only thing he regretted about that public meeting was that language might be held which would render it more difficult than it would otherwise be for the Government to do what they intended to do in behalf of the letter carriers. He would put a ease before the hon. Member and the House. Suppose he was a large employer of labour, and his workmen presented him with a memorial; suppose he said the memorial they presented raised questions which were difficult and delicate, and they would take a little time to be fully and carefully investigated; suppose, having given them that assurance, they suddenly announced that unless that decision was
  1634
  given within a certain time they would call in the force of a public agitation. In such a case, would not any large employer of labour do as the Government had done? There was no capitulation on the part of the Government, and the whole cause of delay was that the subject was a large, complicated, and difficult one. He knew of no question that was more difficult and delicate than what was the just remuneration to be given for a particular class of labour, and personally he was extremely anxious that the letter carriers, and everyone else employed in the Post Office, should receive the remuneration to which they were justly entitled; but, as he had had occasion often to remark before, the money was not his money—it was not the money of the Government—but the money of the taxpayers, and as trustee for the taxpayers he was bound to look after their interests. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber) seemed to think that very little had been done for the Post Office employés. He had formerly stated that the new scheme would involve on the Public Exchequer a charge of at least £60,000 a-year, and that represented the interest on a capital sum of no less than £2,000,000. He put it to the House whether anyone would be justified in taking a capital sum of £2,000,000 from the general body of the taxpayers, in order to benefit a particular class of Government employés, until he felt certain that this large expenditure of public money was required by the circumstances of the case? It must be remembered that there were two sides of this picture. No doubt the letter carriers were anxious to have good wages; but not long ago he received a very indignant letter from a working man in London—not the only one he had received, he might tell the House. This working man was evidently, from the style of his letter, a man of considerable education, and he said he found it impossible to earn as much as a letter carrier. He said his work was casual; he had no sick pay and no pension. He pointed out that the letter carrier had certainty of employment, sick pay, and pension, and said, comparing their lot with his own, he altogether objected to additional taxation being imposed on him for the benefit of a class who were better off than he was himself by the exercise of all his energies. Therefore,

  1635
  it was important that the subject should be looked at from two points of view. The hon. Member for Poole had said that what the Government were going to give the letter carriers was inadequate; but he had brought forward no facts in proof of that statement. On the other hand, he could tell the hon. Member that during the last 12 months he had investigated the subject, and having made a most fair and impartial comparison between the remuneration received by the letter carriers and the remuneration obtained by artizans and other employés in the various industries of the country, he believed the letter carriers, at the present time and under the new scheme, received remuneration which was just. The hon. Member for Poole also asked what had been the cause of the long delay. If he understood fully the whole nature and the complexity of the problem the Government had to solve, he would know at once that nothing could be more unwise and more unjust to the taxpayers of the country than to speak of the delay? He had, first of all, to apply to the various classes of employers throughout the country, so as to know the rate of wages, and then he had to make a comparison between such employés and the letter carriers of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and he could say that he had arrived at his decision with the least possible delay. The hon. Member for Poole said also that he (Mr. Fawcett) had only partially investigated the charges made in the Memorial presented by the postmen. In answer to that he had to say that he had investigated many allegations made in the Memorial, and in due time the complaints made would receive answers. Where concession could be made it would be made, and he would be glad to make it; where he thought the demands made ought to be refused, he hoped the House, in the interests of the public, would support him in his refusal. The hon. Member for Poole had started a very extraordinary theory, and one which he had seen stated in other places, and he would, therefore, say a word or two upon it. The hon. Member for Poole seemed to think that the Revenue raised from the Post Office should be distributed among the employés of the Post Office. The hon. Member might just as well say that the Revenue yielded by
  1636
  the Excise ought to be distributed among the employés of the Excise. The Revenue raised by the Post Office did not belong any more to the employés of the Post Office than the Revenue of the Excise to the employés of the Excise. It really belonged to the public; and suppose the House of Commons decided that the Post Office was not to be used as a Department of Revenue, the sacrifice of Revenue should not be used in paying Post Office employés more than the market rate of wages, but in giving to the public more postal facilities, and reducing various charges. There were many ways in which the Revenue might be applied. For instance, he had had applications to reduce the price of telegrams, and, no doubt, it would be a great boon to the public. If any reduction of Post Office Revenue was to be sanctioned this reduction in the price of telegrams was, to his mind, one of the first things to be considered. Then, again, there were great districts in England, Scotland, and Ireland in which the postal communication required to be improved, especially in the rural districts, by having more frequent deliveries of letters. If Revenue could be spared from the Post Office, that seemed to him one of the ways in which it ought to be spent; and he could not help thinking that nothing but mischief could result from encouraging the idea that the Revenue from the Post Office belonged not to the public, from whom it was obtained, but to the employés of the Post Office. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) made a complaint on the previous night that the annual Report of the Post Office was published a very short time before the Estimates came to be discussed. In reply to that he could only say that he had done everything possible in order to get the Report out as soon as it could be published, and he regretted that it was so late in getting into the hands of hon. Members. With reference to the Telephone Companies, as there had been in the City a considerable amount of speculation on the chance that the Government would take over those Companies, and as some people seemed to suppose that what took place with regard to the Telegraphs would be repeated with reference to the telephone Companies, he thought it would be well to take that opportunity of making a few

  1637
  remarks with the object of removing all doubts and misapprehensions on the subject. From the policy which had recently been adopted with regard to telephone enterprize, he did not think there was the smallest chance that the Government would ever have to purchase any Telephone Company's undertaking; and he thought that the investors who had speculated in them with the idea that some day they would get favourable terms from the Government should at once know the truth. The Department were going to allow free competition—competition not only among the Telephone Companies themselves, but between the Companies and the Post Office. When that competition had gone on for some time the public would be able to judge who did the telephone business best. If it were done better by the Private Companies than by the Post Office, the Department would be delighted to have the whole telephone business of the country conducted by private enterprize. If, on the other hand, it was proved that the business was better done by the Government than by the private Companies, the Government would have beaten the Companies in the fair open field of competition, and they could occupy the ground without any question of purchase or compensation arising. He trusted the House would excuse him for having entered into the question at such length; but he thought it was important that investors should at once know the intentions of the Government.
  Resolution agreed, to.
  Resolutions 6 and 7 agreed to.
  Resolution 8.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that, as he was not in his place when the Vote came on for consideration last night, he wished now to make a few observations with reference to it. He believed he was right in saying that the Vote was practically for the removal of the underground reservoir now in existence near Piccadilly, in the neighbourhood of Hyde Park Corner, and which supplied certain
  1638
  Government office with water. The question was where the reservoir was now to be placed; and until the House knew that, it would be sanctioning a Vote of which it did not know the meaning. He believed it was intended to place it in Hyde Park, where, for a long time to come, until it was covered by trees, it would necessarily be a most unsightly object.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREstated that the actual spot to which the reservoir was to be removed was not quite decided; but the new site would be in Hyde Park, on higher ground, somewhere north of the Serpentine.
  LORD ELCHO: That was exactly the fault that he found with the proceedings of the Government. The whole plan should have been settled and explained to the House before the Vote was asked for; but, as things were, the House was called upon to sanction a plan without an opportunity of considering it. As far as he could judge, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would fail to diminish the plethora of traffic at Hyde Park Corner, would disfigure, rather than embellish, that part of the Metropolis, and, if it did not succeed, would do irremediable damage. The stoppages in the traffic were at Hamilton Terrace and at Hyde Park Corner. The plan of the First Commissioner left the width of Piccadilly from Park Lane to the Corner the same as now, therefore the congestion would not be relieved at all. But after he had gone to the expense of a model and of plans, and had got the promise of £20,000 from the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of £3,000 from the Duke of Westminster, he amended his plan. When he had done all, he did not meet the block that had to be dealt with. He had to go to the Board of Works to ask them to widen his plan, thus confessing an oversight on the most important point. The Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects had considered the First Commissioner's model and plan, and they pointed out that there was no indication of an increase of width at Hamilton Place. Although he had since proposed to widen Piccadilly, the extra width would only be that of a footpath, and this was quite inadequate. But even his amended plan would not meet the difficulty. This might be illustrated by the case of a man with a contracted mouth and a stricture

  1639
  in the gullet. The right hon. Gentleman's remedy was equivalent to cutting the mouth from ear to ear and leaving the gullet untouched. Upon the aesthetic aspect of the scheme the Royal Institute of British Architects had expressed a very strong opinion, and behind that superior opinion he took shelter. The architects stated in their Report that the contemplated removal of the Arch from its present position would destroy a well-balanced architectural group, involving, moreover, an expenditure which they considered had little or nothing to recommend it. A line drawn through the Arch, as contemplated, would lead to nowhere and to nothing. It simply opened into an awkward place. If the Arch were removed, St. George's Hospital would be the main feature of the thoroughfare; whereas it was at present almost entirely hidden from view. It was said that the First Commissioner of Works had some wide scheme in hand for getting rid of the Hospital altogether, and having some central station erected on the site.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had no such intention as the noble Lord attributed to him.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, that, at all events, such a plan had been talked of. He had adduced sufficient reasons why the House ought to pause before it compelled the Iron Duke to do what he never did in the flesh, to retire from a position which he occupied in strength into a lower one in which he would not look well. He had ventured to call the attention of Members to what he denominated a rival revival of earlier plans; and, as the right hon. Gentleman would not allow it to be exhibited along with his own, he had obtained permission to place it in the Cloak Room, where lithographed copies might be obtained. This combination of plans was to be found in the Office of the First Commissioner. If it were tried and failed, there was nothing in it to prevent the ultimate adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's plan. It divided itself into two parts. On the north of Piccadilly there would be a new road in the Park from Stanhope Gate to the Corner; and the present road, with a new opening into Park Lane, would be made a street outside the Park. South of Piccadilly, from Hamilton Place, a new road would be made to Grosvenor
  1640
  Place, and at the intersection of Constitution Hill there would be a bridge. A temporary bridge might be constructed for a trial, and the permanent structure might be made as ornamental as possible. This plan would leave the reservoir and the Arch untouched, and it would relieve both Hamilton Place and Hyde Park Corner, giving a continuous route to traffic from the north to Victoria Station and the east. The plan he recommended would be an ornamental one, and would greatly facilitate traffic. By it the Duke of Wellington's Arch would remain untouched, and the Hospital would not be interfered with. He had the authority of the Council of the Institute of Architects that the plan of the right hon. Gentleman would not be nearly so ornamental or so convenient as that which he advocated. At all events, he wished it to be clearly understood that, in putting forward this proposal, he and others who supported it were merely animated by a friendly feeling of rivalry as to who should do most in improving the Metropolis. He did not think that the requirements of the case could be met by the plan of the right hon. Gentleman; and he should like to know who were the eminent authorities on whose support the right hon. Gentleman relied. He thought that in all the circumstances he was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman either to give his plan a trial, or else to postpone his decision on the matter until Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing the question. He had been told that if the matter came to a vote the Prime Minister would not be found in the same Lobby as the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the noble Lord was quite correct in the statement that he made at the commencement of his speech, that the £3,000 which had been asked for was merely for the purposes of the removal of the reservoir. He had pointed out when he first explained the scheme that that was so. The reservoir supplied the Public Offices with water, and certainly was not such as it might be. It would, therefore, be desirable that the reservoir should be removed to a higher spot, so that the pressure for the supply of water might be greater. It was proposed under the scheme of the Government to remove the reservoir to a higher point in Hyde

  1641
  Park, but the exact spot had not yet been determined upon; anyhow, it would probably be the highest point in the Park, and most probably it would be placed in the north of the grounds. The removal of the reservoir would be no disfigurement whatever, and would not involve the cutting down of any trees. It would be covered in for the greater part of its length. He wished to point out to the House that the question of the Hyde Park difficulty had exercised the minds of successive Commissioners and of the House for many years past, and it had been generally agreed that the serious block that occurred at Hyde Park Corner was extremely inconvenient and dangerous. A great many schemes had been proposed; but, for some reason or other, they had all been found deficient. In 1875, the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox), then Chief Commissioner, submitted a plan for making a road from Hamilton Place to Halkin Street, tunnelling under Constitution Hill, almost identical with one part of the noble Lord's plan, and the House voted £5,000 towards it; but in the following Session the noble Lord came down to the House, and was obliged to admit that insuperable difficulties had occurred, and that he was obliged to abandon his scheme. He then proposed another plan, in which, by altering the direction of Constitution Hill, his road would cross it at the level. This he was also compelled to abandon from not being able to obtain the necessary consents. In the following year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutlandshire (Mr. Gerard Noel), who succeeded him, stated to the House that he had a comprehensive plan which did not differ materially from that which he had presented, dealing with the subject, but that he did not see his way to obtaining the money for it. When it became his duty to deal with it, he had carefully considered all three plans, and he had come to the conclusion that that which he proposed was at once the boldest and the most certain to afford a remedy, and the most likely to obtain the various consents. He need hardly point out to the House and to the noble Lord that the essential feature of that plan was the cutting off the corner of the Green Park in a line from Hamilton Place to Halkin Street, and the promotion of an open place in which as many roads could be
  1642
  made as would properly distribute the traffic and remove the block. It was one condition of the plan that the Wellington Arch should be removed from its present position to the point at which Constitution Hill in future would meet the open place, about 100 yards to the south of its present situation, where it would form the Royal entrance to the Green Park. It was said by some that the general features of the scheme could be carried out without the removal of the Arch. That was not so—first, because if the Arch were left where it was, it would not be possible to widen the upper part of Grosvenor Place, and without this widening the block could not be removed; and, secondly, because, if left in its present position, the gradients or other conditions would require that the road between the two Parks should not pass under the Arch, but round one side of it, and through one of the side gates into Hyde Park, and thus all the dignity of the approach and the meaning of the Arch would be lost. The noble Lord had objected that the Arch in its new position would not be square with the gateway to Hyde Park and to other buildings. This was true; it would be at right angles to Constitution Hill, but would not be parallel or at right angles to other buildings. This might be a serious defect if it were at all near to other buildings; but it would be at a considerable distance, and would no longer be a part of the group of arches at the entrance of Hyde Park. As to his authorities for the advantages of his scheme, all he could say was that they were of the highest eminence; amongst others he had consulted Mr. Street. ["Oh!" and "Law Courts," from Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK.] Well, he ventured to say that those who had seen the Law Courts recognized in them ability of the highest merit. The word "askew" was a formidable one, but there was no canon of Art against buildings being askew to one another; on the contrary, the greatest artists in architecture the world had known—namely, the Greeks—were of an opposite opinion; they rather avoided placing buildings at right angles or parallel to one another; and in the Acropolis he need hardly remind hon. Members that the group of buildings, the most celebrated in the world, were purposely not placed at right angles or parallel to one another. It was abso-

  1643
  lutely necessary, if the scheme in its general features was to be carried out, that the Arch should be removed. The noble Lord had not, however, contented himself with criticizing the scheme put forward by the Government, but had proposed an alternative scheme, and that enabled him (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) to put himself in the position of a critic. He would venture to say, having given to the matter a very careful consideration, and without any prejudice whatever, that the scheme which the noble Lord proposed was not one that had given satisfaction to those who had gone into it; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) was quite sure of this—that if his scheme were out of the way, there would not be the remotest chance of that of the noble Lord being accepted. The noble Lord objected to moving one arch; but his plan proposed to move three arches, the beautiful erection of Mr. Burton, the present position of which could not be improved. The noble Lord also proposed that the entrance to Hyde Park should be removed from its present position and placed at right angles to where it now was; and he also proposed not only to cut off the corner of the Green Park, but also the corner of Hyde Park. The general effect of the noble Lord's scheme would be to take no less than three acres of land from the Park and give it up for the purpose of making roads; whereas the Government scheme only took something like one acre. He further ventured to say that, if the noble Lord's scheme were accepted, it would not remove the block or the congestion of traffic, for the real block was at Hyde Park Corner, and not at Hamilton Place; while the scheme of the noble Lord seemed only to deal with the block at Hamilton Place.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he had contended that there were two blocks — one at Hamilton Place and one at Hyde Park Corner.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that, if that were so, the noble Lord made no provision whatever for widening the top of Grosvenor Place, and thus relieving the traffic at Hyde Park Corner. All he could say was that, while this scheme of the noble Lord involved the maximum of alteration, it ended in the minimum of accommodation to the public, and would not at all deal with the difficulty of the block at Hyde Park Corner.
  1644
  He was confident it could not be carried out. The noble Lord had called to his aid the Institute of Architects, and had claimed that they had condemned the official plan. It was true that some days ago the Council of that Institute came as a deputation to him and presented to him an alternative plan prepared by their Secretary. They told him, however, that they were not united on the subject; and he had no difficulty in proving to them that there were more serious objections to the plan of their Secretary, and they left him under the impression that the majority of them were convinced. They subsequently sent a deputation to the Metropolitan Board with another plan; but this, again, was open to other objections, and the Board unanimously declined to adopt it. The noble Lord seemed to think it a serious matter that the Institute of Architects should express an opinion. He could not, however, accept their Council as an arbiter in such matters. Till the present time the Institute had never undertaken to advise the Government or the public in such questions. Their present President was a gentleman to whom the public of London was indebted for the monument known as the Griffin. When, last year, he endeavoured to disestablish the creature, and so remove the obstruction which it caused to traffic in front of the new Law Courts, he received no assistance from the Institute of Architects. But, though he had not consulted the Institute of Architects in its collective capacity, he did not adopt this scheme without taking advice from a great number of persons well qualified to give opinion. He did not hesitate to say that it had been approved of by the great bulk of persons who were qualified—by such men as the late Mr. Street, Mr. Water-house, Mr. Fergusson, the well-known writer on architecture, Mr. Holford, and numerous others. It had been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and had been received with favour on both sides. It had received the approval of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen, who had been graciously pleased to give up a small part of the garden of Buckingham Palace for the public wants; and the Board of Works had almost unanimously adopted the plan, and had voted £20,000 towards its being carried out. The scheme, having been some months before the public, had been almost

  1645
  unanimously approved by the Press. He therefore ventured to hope the House would not support the noble Lord in his desire to postpone the scheme. It was his conviction that if this plan were postponed no other alternative would be more fortunate or more acceptable, and the only result would be that the difficulty would remain for an indefinite period unsolved and without a remedy.
  MR. CRAIGwas of opinion that the plan proposed by the Chief Commissioner of Works would produce a much better effect than that proposed by the noble Lord. It was a position of great prominence, and it should be made as beautiful as possible. He considered the plan of the Chief Commissioner of Works would combine utility with beauty in an essential degree.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had given a good deal of attention to this question, and had carefully considered the plans; and the result he had arrived at was that, so far as relieving the congestion of the traffic was concerned, the plan of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) was the better of the two. His chief objection to the Chief Commissioner's plan was that the place which it would create would be cut up into too many small plots and gardens. The plan, however, might, by some modifications, be made much more acceptable.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he had watched Hyde Park Corner for some years, and he felt greatly relieved when the plan for improving it was placed in the Tea Room. With regard to the statue of our great Commander, which was at present at the Corner, if it could not stay where it was, he saw no reason why it should not be placed on a suitable pedestal in front of Apsley House, where it could be seen by the people of England. The plan of the Chief Commissioner seemed to combine every requisite with boldness of conception and completeness in treatment; and, therefore, he gave it his hearty and grateful support.
  SIR EDWARD REEDexpressed the satisfaction he felt when he heard the plan which the Chief Commissioner had decided upon. He had, under a previous Chief Commissioner, carefully examined plans put forward for an improvement; but the objection to every plan was that it involved the retention of the Arch. The problem had now
  1646
  been solved in the only way in which a solution could be arrived at by the bodily removal of the Arch. Anyone who had observed the traffic on the spot must admit that the plan would afford relief where it was most required, at Hyde Park Corner and Hamilton Place. As to the aesthetic view of the question, he was at a loss to know how anyone could contend that the Arch was in a satisfactory position. Standing in the road, and looking through the Arch, one would find it led to nothing, but was a monstrous object placed in a false position. The plan of the Chief Commissioner would take the Arch to a position removed from other architectural features, and leave it free to the observer under the best circumstances. At the end of a straightened Constitution Hill it would afford the fitting approach to a Royal Palace. From every point of view the change would be a vast improvement, and he hoped the Chief Commissioner would set about the work without hesitation and delay.
  MR. CATENDISH BENTINCKagreed in the main with the remarks of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), and on the question of convenience certainly thought he had the best of the argument. But what he had been unable to gather was what objections there really were to the scheme proposed by the Institute of British Architects. In the matter of gradients there certainly was no objection. As to the artistic or æsthetic point of view, he differed altogether from those who thought any advantage would be gained from placing the Arch askew. He did not pretend to be a man of taste himself, and he thought that taste was matter of opinion not to be referred to any abstract idea. But they could learn from observation of the works of great architects of the Greco and Roman era, from the great Italian masters of the 16th century, and from the works of their own architects, Sir Christopher Wren, Inigo Jones, and others of the 17th century, and their taste might be accepted as standards of comparison. Uniformity was the great feature of ancient architecture, and hence it was that the Institute of British Architects objected to the proposed scheme, as it would destroy a well-balanced architectural group. At present the Ionic screen and the Arch formed that well-balanced group, and that it was proposed to de-

  1647
  stroy. The authority of Mr. Street had been put forward in support of the Chief Commissioner's scheme. Now, he was not disposed to accept the authority of the late Mr. Street, and anyone who had read the books of Mr. Street—for instance, his North of Italy—knew that if ever there was an enemy to architectural uniformity it was Mr. Street. Mr. Street, at the time of his death, was President of the Institute of British Architects, and the opinion of the Institute and its present President was known. The new President was Mr. Horace Jones. True, he designed the "Griffin" Memorial, and it must be admitted he failed there; but still the Griffin was better than many monuments in London, and, indeed, there were persons who thought it the finest thing in the Metropolis. But the Institute of which he was President had on several occasions been consulted in proposed alterations, and had done good service in preventing such monstrous acts as the destruction of the Portico of St. Martin's Church, and their opinion was worth consideration. Imagine a proposal to pull down the Arc de Triomphe, at Paris, and set it askew. Why, all Paris would rise in semi-revolution against such a proposal. From the point of view of convenience, as well as æstheticism, the scheme of his noble Friend was preferable to that of the Chief Commissioner.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONobserved, that very much had been said about relieving the traffic; but he hoped that Constitution Hill would be opened to the public.
  MR. WARTONexpressed his objection to the proposed plan, and disputed the authority of Mr. Street, condemning his new Law Courts as an incongruous mixture of ideas without convenience, and which had not a Court in the building equal to the old Court of Exchequer. He appealed to the Chief Commissioner to let a little more time pass before commencing the work.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Resolution [August 11] reported.
    Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated
    1648
    Fund to the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament; and that Mr. PLAYFAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. COURTNEY do prepare and bring it in.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Robert Duff.)
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    [BILL 240.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(The Lord Advocate.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURexpressed the obligations which the people of Scotland were under to the Lord Advocate in bringing in this Bill to improve the Fishery Board. It was a question that had long occupied the minds of the Scottish people, and especially of the fishing part of the population. He would, however, submit to his right hon. and learned Friend whether it would not be wiser, having got so far with the Bill, to allow the present Fishery Board to go on for a few months longer. The gentleman who was at its head was well qualified to carry on the business, which was of such a character as would render its operation for a few months more a matter of perfect ease, and no inconvenience would be suffered. Considering the opposition which might arise, particularly on the money part of the question, he would advise the Lord Advocate not to go on with the Bill. The delay would be useful by allowing time for improving the clauses relating to the duties of this improved Fishery Board. To leave these duties to be defined by the experience of the past would be to make these duties depend on a half-dead body, which performed the functions relating to the fisheries in a very unsatisfactory manner. The fisheries off the Coast of Scotland were capable of being made into a vast industry; but to effect this the rules defining the Board's duties must be set forth in the Act. Another reason for putting off the Bill was this—that the present Bill had excited some alarm in the minds of the proprietors of certain salmon rivers in Scotland, and time should be given to enable proprietors of

    1649
    salmon fisheries to come to an understanding with the Lord Advocate. He further thought it would be desirable to have a digest of all the laws relating to the salmon fisheries made, and an amending Bill brought in next Session. He therefore urged the Lord Advocate to suspend proceeding further with the Bill till Monday.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Certainly; I only wish to go into Committee pro formâ.
    LORD ELCHOsaid, he thought power should be given to the Commissioners so that fisheries should be encouraged both in the sea and inland rivers. In particular, he suggested that they should have power to recommend to the Treasury a further grant in aid to harbours. He hoped something of that kind would be done, at any rate where persons interested in those harbours had themselves come forward and asked for a grant in aid from the Treasury.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  INDIA (HOME CHARGES ARREARS) BILL.— [BILL 272.]
  (Mr. Courtney, The Marquess of Hartington.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr Courtney.)
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURprotested against the Bill being proceeded with then. It dealt with old arrears spread over a number of years prior to 1878, a settlement of which was agreed to in 1879, so that the Government in power since then had allowed the passing of an Act to legalize the transaction to remain outstanding since 1878; and he contended that some time should he given for the House to acquaint itself with the details.
  MR. COURTNEYobserved, that the present Government could be only responsible for two years of the delay.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
  (Mr. Pendarves Vivian, Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Borlase.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.

    [BILL 95.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. A. P. VIVIAN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said; I may state that I have presented a Petition from the county of Cornwall in support of this Bill, signed by about 100,000 of the inhabitants; and considering that the whole population is about 320,000, and that the Petition is signed only by persons over 16 years of ago, it represents a very large majority of the adult population. Among those who signed the Petition, the working classes, whom the Bill will affect more than any other, were largely represented; and in proof of the feeling of the working classes on this subject, I may mention that of 549 workmen engaged at a large foundry and engine works at Hayle 477 signed in favour of the Bill; 44 expressed themselves against it, and 28 were neutral; so that, putting these figures into percentage, we have 87 per cent in favour of the Bill, 8 per cent against it, and 5 per cent neutral. These are the men employed in one of the largest manufacturing establishments in Cornwall. Without doubt, this matter has been taken up by every class throughout the county, without distinction of politics or religion. We have at the head of our Association the Lord Lieutenant of the County (the Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe), who at first did not feel inclined to take up that position; but who, having convinced himself that the Bill was desired by the large majority of the population, took the lead in the movement. Besides the Lord Lieutenant, we have the Bishop of the diocese (the Bishop of Truro), and a large number of the clergy and ministers of all denominations throughout the county. The mayors of the different boroughs are all in favour of the Bill except one; and of the 13 Members of Parliament, 11 are certainly in favour of it—nine on this side and two on the other side of the House; and the views of the other two I am ignorant of. These facts, I think, should convince the hon. and learned Member for Brid-port (Mr. Warton), who last night chal-

    1651
    lenged the idea that the movement had been taken up by the majority of the people throughout the country. When 11 out of the 13 borough and county Members are in favour of the Bill, that, I think, should be sufficient proof that the whole county is practically in favour of it. In Cornwall we are wonderfully situated geographically for the application of this measure. We have the sea on three sides, and the fourth side is bounded to a large extent by a large river. Besides that, we have no very large towns—the largest do not contain 15,000 inhabitants; and in moving the second reading I do so most conscientiously, in the full persuasion that the Bill is desired by the very large proportion of the people. I am convinced the large majority of the classes concerned is in favour of it. They simply ask for the same measure as has been given to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. They ask for this Bill because they feel that Sunday closing will be a benefit to themselves, their families, and to the whole county.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. P. Vivian.)
    MR. WARTON,in opposing the Bill, said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had not thought it worth while to occupy their attention for more than four minutes, and he only used one argument. The hon. Member pressed forward the Bill on the sole ground that the opinion of the people of Cornwall was in its favour; but what did it really mean? They all knew how Petitions were got up, and he did not put much faith even in the opinion of the converted Lord Lieutenant. It was very easy to go with the stream, and the principle of the Liberal Government was expediency, who did evil that good might come. The opinion of the people of Cornwall on this question was really of no concern, and, no doubt, the Petitions were got up at the various Dissenting chapels in a manner similar to that which took place in Wales last year. Hon. Members all knew what a flock of sheep would do if one of them went through a hole in the hedge, and that appeared to be the course adopted by the supporters of this Bill. They followed each other like a flock of sheep, and cowardly surrendered the principles of personal freedom
    1652
    and responsibility. He did not care for the majority of the people of Cornwall. He objected to departmental, county, or parish legislation. With regard to the provisions of this Bill, he did not think it dealt with the subject in the right way. The Preamble said—"It is expedient and the county of Cornwall desires." He never heard of so sentimental a Preamble, which implied that there were many things expedient, but not desirable. It was argued that because the public-houses were now closed on Sundays during certain hours it was desirable to extend the shutting up of the public-houses to the other hours of the Sunday. To say that because partial closing on Sundays had had good results, therefore it would be beneficial to close public-houses throughout Sunday was as absurd as saying that a man who found he had been eating too much would do well to abstain altogether from eating. There was another curious little point in the drafting of this Bill which he would mention. The Licensing Acts of 1872–4 were alluded to as though there had been a Licensing Act of 1873. Would anyone who wrote or spoke English naturally—which he supposed they did not in Cornwall—approve of this clumsy, stupid mode of wording the Preamble of an Act of Parliament? He did not think the Attorney General even, who would accept almost anything, would accept these words in an Act of Parliament. The great Lord Coke—the soundest lawyer, perhaps, this country ever had—had said the proper course where there was an evil to be dealt with was to define the evil and then to consider the remedy. In this case there was a remedy, but there was no evil. Was Cornwall a place distinguished for drunkenness? It was just the opposite. Looking at the Returns, he found that out of the whole population of Cornwall the proportion of convictions for drunkenness on Sunday was one out of every 100,000 on 10 Sundays. Would any man, except a fanatical teetotaller, say there was any argument for closing the public-houses entirely on Sundays in Cornwall? The chances were 999,999 to one against a Cornishman being arrested on Sunday for drunkenness, and this Bill was directed against the one. If the men who introduced such legislation cared twopence about facts and figures, they would take account of that. As-

    1653
    suming that all the Petitions which were spoken of were genuine, this Bill was merely a gross instance of the tyranny of democracy, the tyranny of people who, because they could not understand their fellow-men, determined to compel them to conform to their ideas. The 200,000 Petitioners were to trample on the remaining population because they, in their superior wisdom, thought it desirable their neighbours should not exercise the rights they possessed. Why should the minority of the population of Cornwall be trampled on because they happened to live among such superior and virtuous persons? He had had numerous letters from working men in Cornwall, thanking him for the efforts he had made to prevent this Bill becoming law. He knew, too, the pressure that had been used. Even in his position persons of superior social rank had, in a most unjustifiable manner, brought influences to bear on him upon this question. Of real temperance he was as much in favour as anybody; but this was not a question of moderation. The case of Ireland was no argument in favour of the Bill, for though the figures showed there had been a great diminution in drunkenness since the Sunday Closing Act, an analysis of the figures showed that the result was in no way owing to the Act, for the diminution was 27 per cent in the five largest towns to which the Act did not apply; whereas, where the Bill was in force, the decrease was only 14 per cent. And in Galway and Carrickfergus, when the Act was in operation, there had been a positive increase of drunkenness. Increased temperance did not result from such Bills as this; it resulted from the social and moral elevation of the people. Allowing the importance of Saturday Sittings for the furtherance of Public Business in extreme cases, he protested against hon. Members who had charge of Bills which interfered with the general comforts of the people taking advantage of those Sittings, when appointed for the consideration of Bills of a special character, with the view of taking Parliament by surprise, and getting it to give a second reading to their own measures. There had been a pledge given by Her Majesty's Government a week ago that such an abuse of Saturdays' Sittings would not be allowed, and he hoped that that pledge would be adhered to.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If anything was wanting to commend this Bill to the House, it would be the character of the opposition, for a more wanton and unjustifiable waste of time I have never—
    MR. ONSLOW: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether it is competent for the Home Secretary to accuse an hon. Member of having wantonly and unjustifiably wasted the time of the House in opposing this Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has wantonly and unjustifiably wasted the time of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for these expressions. I am bound to say I do not see they are out of Order.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I say that a more wanton and unjustifiable waste of time I have never before known in the House of Commons.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid: This second example of the character of the opposition makes it perfectly clear that my previous expressions need no qualification. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport says he does not care for the opinions of the people of Cornwall. I cannot approach the subject from that point of view. In these matters, as in others, the House is bound to consider the opinions of the people affected by measures passed in the House. But the hon. and learned Member himself is not always so indifferent to the opinions of the people of Cornwall. The hon. and learned Member denounces very much those people who float with the stream, and says the friends of temperance pursue their propositions without regard to the consequences. Now, it is a very remarkable circumstance that the hon. and learned Member, who blocks every Bill, has blocked this Bill during the Session. But there came a county election in Cornwall, and it was considered, even by persons who have expressed objection to this Bill, that it would not be convenient that a block to it should appear in the name of a Conservative Member during the course of the Cornwall Election, and the

    1655
    consequence was that the block in the name of the hon. and learned Member disappeared from the Bill, but re-appeared in the name of an hon. Member from Ireland (Mr. Callan), who has just attempted to count out the House. This is the history of the character of the opposition to this Bill, and of the manner in which the feelings of the people of Cornwall are dealt with by those who call themselves independent people. It is well that the high tone of virtue which has been taken up by certain hon. Gentlemen should be properly understood. So much for the protestations of the hon. and learned Member's extraordinary virtue in dealing with measures of this character. The reasons why I, on the part of the Government, shall support the second reading of this Bill, are the same reasons which actuated the Government in reference to the Irish Sunday Bill and the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill. No doubt, there are certain classes of questions which ought to be dealt with on the same footing for the whole of the community, and ought to be dealt with upon general principles as affecting the community at large. But there are particular classes of questions which are rather of local than of general application. I have always been of opinion that the question of dealing with public-houses is essentially a local one, and that it ought to be governed by the opinions of those in the locality. The House acted upon that principle with regard to the Irish and Welsh Sunday Closing Bills. I have not spoken of Scotland, because it is now a comparatively long time since the Scotch Sunday Closing Bill was passed. In such matters as these, the only question is, what is to be the extent of the area to which the principle is to be applied? When we have a whole county absolutely unanimous on the subject—I have received a deputation headed by Lord Mount-Edgecumbe, and representing persons of all politics, of all parties, and of all occupations, practically unanimously demanding this measure—all we have to do is to inquire what reason there is for it. Certainly the reason why the Bill should not be passed is not indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member, but I was unable to find what it was all about; it seemed to be in reference to the block rather than
    1656
    to the question raised by the Bill. I have heard no arguments against the Bill. The House in two Parliaments has, with the consent of the great majority of both Parties, practically concluded that these are local questions, to be dealt with according to the sentiments of the community affected by them. That principle having, therefore, in my opinion, been wisely and firmly established, the only question we have to ask is—"Is there an overwhelming sentiment in this particular community in favour of the measure?" Of that there cannot be the smallest doubt. I do not believe you can find a dozen men in Cornwall who will say a word against this Bill. I am extremely anxious to see the hon. and learned Member for Bridport going to Cornwall and addressing the people in the sense in which he has spoken here—namely, that he was totally indifferent to the sentiments of the Cornish people. It seems to me the House has only to act upon the principle upon which it has acted in two successive Parliaments; and, therefore, I shall, on the part of the Government, cordially support the second reading of the Bill.
    LORD ELCHO: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has spoken of the high line of virtue adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport; but I know of no one so great a master of high-sounding virtue when it suits his purpose. [Mr. CALLAN: It is all sham.] The question of regulating public-houses is a question of the majority interfering with the minority—that is to say, the majority who cannot control their own appetites coming to Parliament for legislation to enable them to do so, and to prevent those who are able to control their appetites from getting a glass of beer when they want it. On that point the Home Secretary once made a speech in a very different tone from that which he has now made. I remember the time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a candidate for Oxford, and when he denounced, in words as eloquent and full of high-sounding virtue, any interference with the right of the people to get a glass of beer if they did not abuse that right, and he made use of the favourite expression—"What is this legislation? Call it by its right name; it is not paternal, it is worse than paternal, it is grandmotherly legislation."

    1657
    Now, for my part, I am in favour of the people managing their own affairs, and I am opposed, to this kind of legislation. I am not a Liberal, and why? Because I am in favour of liberty; and the whole tendency of this spurious thing which is called Liberalism at the present day is to encourage persons, who can put on the screw, to come here and ask for legislation—now for Ireland, now for Wales, now for Cornwall—and to put the screw on to obtain it. I detest drunkenness as much as my right hon. and learned Friend; but what I maintain is this—that the suppression of drunkenness ought not to be brought about by Local Option Acts of Parliament, but by elevating the people, so that they should look upon drunkenness with horror. It is the police and my right hon. and learned Friend who ought to deal with this question. If a man is drunk in the streets, take him up, and take him before a magistrate for punishment; that is the way to deal with him, and not in the way that is proposed now by this Bill. Although you uphold the principle of this Bill, yet you are not prepared to bring in a general Sunday Closing Bill for England. You know you dare not do it, because you cannot except the Metropolis; and, that being so, it shows the worthlessness of your principles—it shows the principle by which, you are guided in your legislation—namely, that you legislate where you think there is no fear of danger, and where you think there is danger you leave it alone. Here in London there would be such a row if you were to attempt to close the whole of the public-houses on Sunday that you dare not do it. Why is that? Because a large number of the people of London feel that they are not all drunken, that they have a right, if they choose, even on a Sunday, to get a glass of beer; but here in Cornwall you are going to allow a majority to tyrannize over the minority. The Bishop of Peterborough is, I suppose, as moral a man as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is a bold assumption, after my right hon. and learned Friend's high moral tone to-day; but I still maintain that the Bishop of Peterborough is personally as highly a moral man as my right hon. and learned Friend. What does the Bishop of Peterborough say upon this question? He says he would rather see England
    1658
    drunken and free, than sober and enslaved. That is a sentiment that I heartily endorse; and if we do not take care, in consequence of this sort of legislation, what the Bishop of Peterborough calls the "odd man"—the crotcheteer who, if a temperance reformer, thinks nobody can be happy except by drinking water, and if a vegetarian, that nobody can be healthy unless they eat nothing but vegetables—we shall find ourselves bound hand and foot in the manacles of the State—slaves to the crotcheteers. I was not aware that this Bill was to come on; but I have been so touched by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, that I cannot sit still, because it gives me an opportunity to present the counter-view, which I believe to be the sound one. We owe this Bill to the Saturday Sittings, on which occasions you have a lot of rickety bantlings, with legislative syphilis running through their bones, brought forward and hurried through Parliament on these Saturdays. I see my hon. Friend opposite who is the high priest of Local Option (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The same principle runs through all this kind of legislation—that of the tyranny of the majority over the minority. That is the whole principle. It is to Caucusize the majority, and tyrannize over the country. Those who have water on the brain will not allow anyone to have any kind of beer. I think when you are dealing with this question of Cornwall Option you should recollect that the real question of Local Option has not been able to be discussed this year. It was expected to come on, and a deputation waited upon me and others; but I told them that I was a dreadful heretic and loved liquor.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the noble Lord that he must address himself to the Question before the House.
    LORD ELCHO: With all due deference to you, Sir, I was doing so. It has just been admitted that Local Option runs all through this; and I maintain that if the principle of Local Option is in the Bill, I am justified in pointing out what it means, and that it means much more than it professes, because, as I said to one of these gentlemen who waited upon me, what you wish to do is to knock in the end of every barrel of beer in the country. "Yes," said one of

    1659
    them in his zeal, "that is exactly what we mean; we want to run it away." I said—"Thank you; that will be heard in the House of Commons." Then I said—"You speak as if all the working men in England are drunkards." "Well, the majority of them are," these gentlemen said. We see what libels upon the working people of England these enthusiasts perpetrate. It is because I do not believe the working men of England, or anything like the majority of them, are drunkards, that I oppose this Bill, and protest against the majority being allowed to tyrannize over the minority, and I shall certainly divide the House against the Bill.
    MR. ONSLOW: I protest, Sir, against Saturdays being used for the legislation of the crotchet-mongers. When the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was brought in—that was a Bill brought in by a private Member—I asked, as a Question of Order, whether there was a precedent for such a Bill being considered on a Saturday; and you, Sir, told me you thought there was not such a precedent. The practice, however, has crept in of Private Bills being set down for Saturdays, when constituencies expect their Members to be elsewhere and not in the House. With regard to this particular Bill, it is most remarkable, considering that it is such a burning question in Cornwall, that during the whole discussion there have only been two Cornish Members in the House, and from that fact I think I am justified in saying that the Cornish Members do not care two straws for this Bill. ["No, no!"] That is my opinion; and I am justified in saying the Cornish Members do not care two straws for it, or else how is it that my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Vivian), who says "No," and who has been very patient in putting the Bill down day after day, cannot prevail upon his Friends to stop during the discussion? During the last Election, it was one of the catch-words at every polling-booth. [Cheers.] I know that, and I understand those cheers. I say it was a catch-word. "Will you, or will you not, go in and support this Bill?" And what is the result? When this Bill comes down to the House for second reading, there are only two Cornish Members present; and I say I am justified in appealing to any man of common sense, whether it is not the case
    1660
    that there is not such a love for this Bill, even among Cornish Members, as the hon. Member seems to think? I am one of those who believe that the Sunday Closing Bill has done no good in Ireland in the way of preventing drunkenness. I think there are some persons present who will remember what the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) said upon this Sunday Closing Question. He is a man of very great authority upon every question affecting Ireland, and he asserted here in his place that that Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland had done no good whatever in Ireland. Unfortunately we know that in Scotland the Sunday Closing Bill has not diminished drunkenness there; we know that Scotland is a more drunken place than any other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions; therefore I say this question is purely and entirely a sentimental grievance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary says—"Go to Cornwall and speak to any decent man on this question." I know Cornwall very well, and have spoken to gentlemen there, and I hope they are decent men—I hope all Cornishmen are decent—but I know that many of the lower classes have been forced by some influence to sign Petitions. [Dissent] An hon. Member shakes his head; but I know they have been forced by some ulterior influence into signing the Petitions that have been presented to this House. I know many magistrates and land proprietors in Cornwall; and I know, as a fact, that in Cornwall it has got to this—that it has become wholly a political question. I do not say that a Conservative would have much chance in Cornwall unless he supported this Bill; but that fact and the Petitions presented from the county are no criterion of the feelings of the people. The hon. Member may say the opposition I give to this sort of legislation is on behalf of the publicans. [Lord ELCHO: Why not?] This is no publicans' question at all, but entirely a question of the liberty of the subject; and whether a publican is a good man or not, I shall always oppose this sort of legislation, because I believe it is against the freedom and the liberty of the people. To show this is purely a sentimental grievance, I have in my hand here the Return of the arrests for drunkenness on Sunday, a Return I moved for myself.!I am quoting from

    1661
    the Return of the two years from September, 1879, to September, 1881. The population of Cornwall was asserted to be 286,211, and out of that number there had only been 14 cases in the two years arrested on the Sunday for drunkenness, being an average on the year of one in 40,000. That being the case, it is ridiculous to have this twaddling kind of legislation in order to come down upon one man in 40,000. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate the feelings of the working man as much as he appreciates his own on the Sunday. Is it not absurd to stop the working man obtaining a glass of beer because one in 40,000 in the whole of Cornwall happens to be arrested on the Sunday? Altogether in the two years for which I have the Returns, there were 32 arrests for drunkenness in the whole of Cornwall; but of that number there were only 14 bonâ fide residents. In Falmouth, with a population of 4,873, only four bonâ fide residents were arrested on the Sunday for drunkenness; at Helston, Launceston, Penryn, and Penzance, none were arrested; and in the City of Truro, with a population of 11,049, only four bonâ fide residents were arrested on the Sunday. It is absurd to ask us to waste our time on a Saturday in order to pass these mischievous Bills. I do not wish to say one word against those gentlemen, and those people who are trying to correct the progress of drunkenness. I think many of them are fanatics, and that they are going a great deal too far; but I am not at all sure that this liquor which is now sold in the Coffee Palaces will not do the working classes far more harm than the glass of beer sold in the public-house. The stuff that is sold in these Coffee Palaces is really dreadful. There is sold as non-alcoholic beverages stuff that is called champagne brandy, and some stuff called horehound beer; and I maintain that those people who drink that will feel the effects of that horrid stuff now being sold in all your non-alcoholic establishments much more than if they went into a public-house and had a glass of beer. If there is really anything in this question you should take up the Liquor Question as a whole; if there is really a strong feeling outside upon this question, then I say it is certainly a matter for the Government of the day to attack, and do
    1662
    not by this sentimental legislation—legislation which will not meet the requirements of the case—attempt by driblets to interfere, as you are doing, with the freedom of the subject. If there were any riots in Cornwall on the Sunday through drink, if there were any bad habits amongst the working classes from drinking on the Sunday, I think there might be something to be said for the Bill; but we have no proof—no statistics—that drinking on Sunday has done any harm whatever. Were it the contrary, I think there would be a great deal to be considered; but I do hope we have not come yet to such a pass that we are to pass legislation on a Saturday simply because a majority will try, and are trying, to override the opinions of the minority.
    MR. CALLAN: I am sorry that the Home Secretary should—by delivering himself of one of his impassioned phillipics, in a style for which he was remarkable at the Bar, a put-on kind of indignation—have the advantage, at this time of the evening, of keeping you here, Sir, through the dulness of a Saturday Sunday closing meeting. I only wish to refer to one observation of the Home Secretary. When he said, with that expansive manner of his—"We are bound to consider the opinions of the people"—meaning the opinions of the people of Cornwall—it is a pity that he had not held the same opinion this year when he introduced a coercive measure affecting the interests of the people of Ireland. And what did the present Home Secretary state in March, 1873, when a Bill vitally affecting Ireland was introduced? What were the principles by which he was actuated then? He said—
    "For himself, he had never adopted the idea of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. He had always regarded Ireland as a part of Her Majesty's Dominions—as an integral fraction of a united Empire—and, if that be so, Ireland, like all other parts of the Dominions of the Queen, must be governed, not according to Irish, but according to Imperial ideas."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 1618.]
    But here to-day he jumps Jim Crow with all the agility and grace of an acrobat, and says "we must be governed by the people of Cornwall." Now, Sir, this being Saturday, and not wishing to waste any sweetness on the desert air, and seeing that there are not more than half a quorum present, I have to direct

    1663
    your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. ROUND: I only wish to say that I am very anxious this Bill should pass the second reading; and I believe that many Members on these Benches will vote for the Bill. I know many Members who are not here who are in favour of the Bill; and I trust that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will be satisfied with the protest he has made, and will not put the House to the trouble of a division. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. C. C. Ross), although not present, I know, is very anxious for this Bill to pass. In my own constituency the movement has been taken up by the clergy, Nonconformist ministers, and in many rural parishes by the inhabitants generally, who are desirous that a similar measure for England should become law.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I think, Sir, that the procedure of the Government in the matter of this Bill is unjustifiable; and, as an old Member of Parliament, I never remember a printed Bill being taken with the sanction of the Government at a Saturday Sitting. ["Oh, oh!"] This proceeding was settled at an early hour this morning between the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian) and the Government; but without Notice being given. The Home Secretary decided to take this Bill—
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. and learned Member is not correct in his statement. The House itself decided to take the Bill to-day.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Yes; but what did the Government do in the matter? Were there not some negotiations, some political considerations, to be disposed of in deciding that the Bill should be brought on or not? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his speech just now, goes and makes an attack on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but my hon. and learned Friend is at least an honest politician. [Laughter.,] Hon. Members opposite may laugh; but I believe that if the House were asked to vote by ballot as to who was the most honest politician, my hon. and learned
    1664
    Friend or the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my hon. and learned Friend would gain the ballot. The right hon. and learned Gentleman not only attacked my hon. and learned Friend, but he went still further, and assailed the Conservative Party. Such tactics will tell both ways, and if they will get votes in some quarters, it is a very reckless way of getting them. My own experience of elections is by no means small; and I know it is easy, in a hocus-pocus sort of way, to get the votes of the temperance section of the community—the Blue Ribbon Army, the Good Templars, or the Salvation Army. But how was it done? Why, hon. Members opposite, in order to secure the votes of the numerous people in the temperance ranks, say on the hustings—"I will vote for the second reading of the Permissive Bill of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle" (Sir Wilfrid Lawson); but we all know that if that Bill is not altered in Committee to such an extent that its own parent is unable to recognize it at all, very few hon. Members would allow it to take its third reading. What was the attitude of the Government on this subject? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, not long ago, came down to Cumberland to make a big speech—in fact, he was "starring the Provinces" in the interest of the hon. Member for Carlisle; but it is absurd to suppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in accordance with the hon. Baronet. The fact is, there is not much agreement between the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle and the Home Secretary upon general politics; but the whole object of their efforts is to turn out a Conservative. ["Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is wandering from the subject before the House.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I bow to your decision, Sir; but I was endeavouring to answer an argument used by the Home Secretary. This Sunday Closing Question is part of a great effort to stop the sale of intoxicating liquors on all occasions, and this Bill is the thin end of the wedge to prepare the way for something else. I altogether dissent from legislation such as this; and I object to this House passing measures to please a particular

    1665
    section of the community at the expense of other classes, and if they are to be heard on this one matter why should they not claim to be heard on other questions? The Bill is supported by a moat dangerous doctrine. In my opinion, so important a question as this ought only to be decided in a full House, and not at the tail end of the Session, on a Saturday and on the 12th of August. If this Bill is read a second time—as I suppose it will be—I protest against it, for it will not be the opinion of the House of Commons, but of a clique who have been got together to-day for a particular purpose.
    MR. DALY: I must, Mr. Speaker, enter my protest against this kind of piecemeal legislation. It has been said, and it remains uncontradicted, that the doctrine of Sunday closing could not prevail throughout the country; and I am one of those who think that in a question of this kind the main principle ought to be first settled and recognized by the country at large before it is acted upon. I do not see for instance why because the minority in London is large that it ought to be considered any more than the minority in Cornwall, where it is small numerically. We are now, Sir, arriving at a period when you will close the public-houses in various parts of the country for the entire Sunday; but let me call the attention of hon. Members opposite to what will happen in that event. The people will be deprived of the opportunity of obtaining reasonable refreshment on Sunday, and it will press with great hardship on those who are engaged from early morning until late at night six days in the week, and whose only healthy recreation is to walk in the country on the Sunday. With regard to the signatures to the Petition mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Vivian), we all know how signatures to Petitions are obtained, and how they are doubled, trebled, and quadrupled. I do not believe in the goody-goody people who subscribe their names to a Petition of this kind. I consider that Petitions affecting questions of personal liberty should be signed by those persons whose liberties are concerned, and the signatures of gentlemen who never have entered a public-house in their lives ought to have no value in a matter of this sort. I suppose the Bill will be read a second time; but I call the atten-
    1666
    tion of the House to this fact—that by so doing you are recognizing, in a very broad and clear way, a principle which you deny in other cases. If you accept the majority principle to overrule the minority in this personal matter, why does this House deny the same principle to my countrymen on the question of Home Rule, when they can send to Parliament Petitions signed by more than 90 per cent of the whole population of Ireland in its favour? A question of individual liberty, I maintain, ought to be based upon a broad and sound platform; and it is not fair of the Government to give their consent to what is a species of Local Option, a principle which has never been accepted by the Government as one of their measures. I know that the Government has been afraid to meddle with the question of Local Option as a general measure; and I ask whether it is fair or dignified to support a partial measure which deals with the subject by a side wind, and which is introduced on a day when very few Members are present in the House? I believe the victory about to be secured by hon. Gentlemen opposite will be a fruitless one, because it will be unfairly won. It may be said that I, as an Irish Member, have no right to interfere in this matter. I should not do so if it were not a question involving a sacrifice of principle. I sincerely desire that personal liberty shall be respected in all cases where it does not interfere with the liberty of anyone else. Interference with personal liberty is a very wrong principle, and the Sabbatarians are driving this question to extremes. ["Divide, divide! "] Interruptions of that sort will not put me down, but will induce me to prolong my observations. With regard to this question, I say it is a preventive measure which very nearly approaches tyranny. The closing of public-houses on Sundays in the instances where it has been effected has inflicted an injury and hardship on people who were in the habit of using them reasonably. The Government support this Bill, while, at the same time, they abstain from adopting the general principle on which it is based, and they have always hesitated and are afraid to go for Local Option. They are, by a side wind, touching the fringe of a large question, which they are afraid to deal with. I, as an Irish Member, enter my protest against this

    1667
    tyrannical measure, aimed against those who used the public-houses in a reasonable manner on the Sunday—a measure promoted by fanatics and busybodies, who have taken an unfair opportunity to press it forward with the support of the Government.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 8: Majority 33.—(Div. List, No. 332.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. Passmore Edwards, Mr. Buchanan.)
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.

    [BILL 206.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes. The Bill was short, and only contained two provisions. The first of these was to include wild animals in captivity under the Cruelty to Animals Act; and the other was to treat the shooting of pigeons and other birds that were wild birds in confinement under the same category as bear-baiting, or badger-baiting, or any of those sports that had been put down by Act of Parliament. He had the support, he believed, of most of the genuine sportsmen in the House—such men, for instance, as the hon. Baronet the Member for the North Riding (Sir Frederick Milbank) and many others he could name who were regular and genuine sportsmen. They entirely approved of this Bill. But there were sportsmen and sportsmen. There were some sportsmen who were genuine and some who were bogus, and the latter, of whom there were some examples in the House, were ready to endorse any iniquity that came to them under the guise of the word "sport." With this particular sport there were special iniquities connected. Some things were done that made one's blood boil even to speak of them. Poor helpless birds that were in captivity, and unable to help themselves, were put into boxes to be shot at, and the man who did it might gouge out one of the eyes of the birds to make them fly in a certain direction, and he might take the upper mandible of the
    1668
    bill and bend it down to affect the flight of the bird. Some of these poor birds would not rise when the string of the box was drawn, and in order to make them rise a pin was stuck into their rump, so that they could no longer sit, in order to make them take flight. Sometimes the tail was wrenched out, and all such enormities of that kind were—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Five o'clock till Monday next