Sitting of 20 June 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Leicester Borough, v. PeteT Alfred Taylor, esquire, Manor of Northstead, in the County of York; for Warwickshire County (Northern Division), v. William Bromley-Davenport, esquire, deceased.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order) — Third Reading— Great Western Railway (No. 1), and passed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Colonial Prisoners Removal * [257].
Second Reading — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Naas, &c.) * [220]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [109], debate adjourned.
Report— Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* [229].
Considered as amended—Tramways Provisional Orders (Birmingham and Aston Tramways, &c.) * [180]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3) (Barrow-in-Furness Tramways, &c.) * [194]; Customs and Inland Revenue* [206].
Third Reading—Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order * [222]; National Debt (Conversion of Stock)* [186]; Settled Land* [247], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL (by Order.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. W. FOWLER, in rising to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read the third time upon this day three months, said, that he regretted extremely to have to oppose the Bill; but there was one matter which required the attention of the House, and that was the 63rd clause, which empowered the Company to make bye-laws for regulating the times and conditions under which traction and other engines, or traffic of a heavy or dangerous description, might be passed across any level crossing or over any bridge of the Company's railway. His reason for opposing the Bill was, that this clause seemed to him to involve an alteration of the general law of Parliament by a Private Act. It was, he thought, of the greatest importance that no General Act of Parliament ought to be altered by a Private Act of which adequate Notice had not been given. He had only heard of this provision in the Bill from a letter which had been sent to him; and when he proceeded to examine the clause, it struck him, upon comparing it with the Statute, that it was distinctly an alteration of the general law. In the General Act, there were clauses establishing a code of regulations in regard to the matter dealt with by this section of the present Bill,

    977
    which code was clearly altered by the Bill. With the greatest deference, he maintained that if it were necessary to alter the provisions of a General Act which had been applied to the whole of the Kingdom, it ought to be done by a measure introduced by the Board of Trade, so that the House should have a proper and satisfactory guide, and not be allowed to feel that the law was being altered in one particular district, while it was allowed to remain unchanged in other localities. As he had said, the section of the Bill to which he took objection referred to the times and conditions under which traction engines, locomotives, and heavy traffic were to pass across any bridges of the Company at level crossings or over bridges. It also empowered the Company to restrict and limit the weight of such engines, machines, and vehicles, as well as the number which might be taken across or over any level crossing or bridge at the same time. Now, these were matters which were all provided for by the Act of 1878, and the local authorities had power to see that everything was properly arranged. Under this section he understood that the local authorities would be practically put on one side, and regulations might be made by the Board of Trade and the Railway Company to the entire exclusion of the local authorities. In the next place, the clause authorized penalties to be imposed on persons acting in contravention of Section 6 of the Locomotives Act of 1861, in the case of any bridge over the railways of the Company which the Company were liable to repair. Under the Act of 1861 no penalties were imposed, and this was clearly a regulation which altered the general law. It was a most material change. He would not say that it might not be quite right to make a change. He did not say whether it was so or not; but what he contended was that the change ought not to be made by means of a Private Act, He knew it might be said that the clause had been introduced into the Bill in order to secure the safety of the public. That also might be so; but if it was necessary in this particular instance, it was also required for the rest of the Kingdom, and he did not see why the provision should be inserted in a single Act applying only to one railway system. In Sir Erskine May's book upon Parlia-
    978
    mentary Practice, it was laid down in regard to the repeal of Public Acts by Private Bills as follows:—
    "It has been questioned whether a Public Act may properly he repealed by a Private Bill; and undoubtedly such provisions demand peculiar vigilance, less public laws be lightly set aside for the benefit of particular persons or places."
    He entirely agreed with Sir Erskine May, that any such attempts should be regarded by the House with the utmost vigilance. The House had no Notice of those Bills; nobody knew anything about the provisions they contained; and the Bills themselves were generally brought on and disposed of before half-past. 4 Any important question involved in a Private Bill was not fought out in a Committee upstairs, as it would be in the Whole House, where everybody knew what was coming on for discussion. A Private Bill, even when opposed, was discussed in Committee in a totally different way. A certain amount of opposition might, no doubt, be raised, but the opposition was not at all the same as would take place if the questions were discussed in the Whole House. It seemed to him that the result of inserting this section in the present Bill would be to create a great conflict of authorities in the districts affected by it. It would be difficult to know whether the local authorities had the power, or the Railway Company under their bye-laws, and that was a difficulty which ought not to be allowed if Parliament could avoid it. On the contrary, they ought to make the law as clear as they possibly could. He was told, by a circular which had been sent to him, that the trade concerned in the manufacture of these engines would be much affected by the passing of the clause, because, in future, the whole power would be in the hands of the Railway Company to say what the weight of the engines should be, instead of having the matter regulated, as it was now, by a General Act. The Board of Trade, no doubt, would exercise some authority and control; but he maintained that it was a question which ought only to be regulated by a General Act, and that it ought not to be competent for any Railway Company to pass a bye-law which might have the effect of injuriously interfering with trade. It was clear to him that it was the duty of the House to

    979
    prevent such a section from being introduced into a Private Act of Parliament which varied the provisions of a General Act already passed by Parliament. His objection was one of principle more than of detail, and in conclusion he begged to move that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months," — (Mr. William Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. PORTMANsaid, that, as Chairman of the Committee who had considered the Bill, he was anxious to say a few words in defence of the course which had been taken by the Committee. They had considered that the evidence before them was exceedingly strong in favour of the clause which had bean introduced by the Great Western Railway Company into the Bill; and as to any hardship or difficulty that might be thrown in the way of owners of traction engines, in moving them from one part of the country to another, he believed that it existed only in imagination. The best proof he could give the House was this. Mr. Grierson told the Committee, in his evidence, that there were many owners of these traction engines who gave notice of their intention, before attempting to cross a level crossing upon an occupation road. The proposed change in the law would in no way benefit the Great Western Railway Company. On the contrary, it would impose upon them a certain amount of additional trouble and expense, which, however, they were quite willing to incur in the interests of the travelling public, because they felt that it was dangerous to the public safety to continue to allow these engines to cross the railways without notice or regulation of any kind whatever. He could assure the House that, personally, he had taken a considerable amount of interest and trouble in the matter; and he had himself put several questions to Mr. Grierson as to the way in which it was proposed by the Railway Company to carry out any bye-laws which might receive the sanction of the Committee. If he were allowed to quote a few extracts from the evidence of Mr. Grierson, the
    980
    House would see that the difficulty which had been raised by the hen. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) was quite an imaginary one. Mr. Grierson explained the manner in which notice was to be given, and said—
    "There are many owners who do give notice throughout the line.—The Chairman: To whom is the notice given?—Witness: To the nearest station master. If some distance from a station, notice could be given to the ganger, who is always within a mile."
    It was further pointed out that the regulations to be laid down would, when drafted, be submitted to the Board of Trade for their approval. He might further mention that, as a matter of fact, this clause was introduced into the Bill at the instance of the Board of Trade themselves. The Committee had Colonel Yolland before them, who explained very fully the reasons which induced the Board of Trade to give their support to the introduction of such a clause. They felt that they had no power to enforce these regulations, unless the matter were taken up generally by the great Railway Companies; and if the House agreed, as he hoped they would, to pass this Bill with this clause in it, he believed the result would be, either that a general law would be enacted on the subject, or that every great Railway Company would take the question up, and introduce bye-laws for themselves, to prevent the inconvenience, and, even more than that, the dangerous risk they incurred of having a serious accident occur from the passing of these engines across their railways without adequate notice and regulation. It was, he thought, most objectionable to sanction their passing of a level crossing without any consideration for the convenience or safety of the line.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that, as one of the Directors of the Company interested in the promotion of the Bill, he wished to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset (Mr. Portman) had shown good reasons for granting the powers which had been inserted in the Bill. So far as the Railway Company themselves were concerned, they really had not seen any other course than that which they had pursued. They felt that the Railway Company were frequently exposed to very great danger—he might say to an appalling danger, so far as the public were concerned—and that, at any mo-

    981
    ment, a serious accident might be occasioned by the inconsiderate use of the powers claimed by the owners of these engines, who had the right to make use of an occupation road. They now claimed the right of crossing these occupation roads on the level at a slow pace, without giving the slightest notice to the Railway Company, and sometimes within a short time of the passing of a train. The whole gist of the demand of the Railway Company was, that they should have notice, and that the owners of these unwieldy traction engines should intimate to the Company when they intended to cross the railway, so as to prevent a great danger to the travelling public. At present, they were not obliged to give any notice whatever; and, as a matter of fact, the opponents of this clause had refused to give notice until very lately. The consequence was, that the Company were put to considerable trouble and expense, and they had to send persons down to take care that due provision was made for the passing of these level crossings. Without previous notice, it was just possible for an express train to reach the crossing just at the time one of these engines was passing it, which would place the public travelling by it in a position of imminent and appalling danger. He might instance a case in which a train had been pulled up only within four or five yards of reaching one of these traction engines, and an accident might happen any day under the existing state of the law. The Railway Company were, therefore, of opinion that a penalty should be attached; and that it was also necessary to alter the weights at which the engines were constructed, so that the Board of Trade, in the case of excess, should have the power of control in the matter. The object of this part of the clause was to guard against the excessive weight of the traction engines breaking down the bridges, or crushing down the line. Penalties were attached for any breach of the law. The Company did not ask Parliament materially to alter the law, but to make it more efficient, by attaching penalties to a breach of it, and he was sure the House would agree that their demand was only reasonable. His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) rested his objection, principally upon the fact that the making
    982
    of a change in the law and the imposition of penalties ought to be done by a General Act, and not by a Private Bill. It was quite true that, to a certain extent, the clause did alter the general law; but what were the Railway Company to do? Under the existing state of things, they found that the greatest possible danger arose to the public. It was said that the Board of Trade ought to bring in a Bill themselves. That might be so; but the Board of Trade had not taken that course, and the Railway Company, being responsible for the working of their own line, had thought it right to put in this clause, suggested, not by themselves, but by the Board of Trade in the interests and safety of the public. It was said by his hon. Friend that the Company had given no Notice to the House of their intention to introduce a clause which would change the general law. They were unable to give any greater Notice than they had done. They had given the full Notice required by the Standing Orders, and no objection was taken except in one or two instances. The clause was generally accepted as a reasonable provision, and the Chairman of the Committee to whom the Bill was referred had told the House the reasons which had induced the Committee to grant these powers. It would be a very hard measure of justice indeed to adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and to throw out this Bill because a clause of this nature had been inserted in it, seeing that it was simply a clause introduced at the suggestion of the Board of Trade in the interests of the public, and that the Railway Company were desirous of meeting the requirements both of the public and of the Board of Trade. There were no means of amending the Bill now, and the Railway Company had done all they could to give due Notice of their intention. When the Bill was before the House for a second time, it might have been opposed upon the second reading; and as to the assertion that there was a want of Notice, the Parliamentary agents looked pretty well after these things, and no objection whatever was raised on the second reading. When the Bill went before the Committee, the Committee agreed to insert the clause; and the only effect of adopting the Amendment of his hon.

    983
    Friend the Member for Cambridge, would be to throw out a Bill on account of a clause which had been inserted—in good faith both towards the Board of Trade and the public—to endeavour to provide for the public safety, and to fulfil the requirements of an important Department of the Government. It was said that there was no precedent for such a clause. Now, there was a precedent for the course which had been taken in this case. Indeed, there were more than one casein which the general law had been altered by clauses introduced into Private Acts of the Railway Companies. Two years ago a clause was sanctioned by Parliament which bore very much upon the present case. Two years ago the Great Western Railway Company found that the offence of trespassing upon their line had no penalty attached to it. They accordingly introduced a Bill, in which a clause was proposed to enable them to fine persons who were found trespassing on their line of railway. The Committee, to whom the Bill was referred, adopted the clause, and it was inserted in the Bill. The reason which induced the Railway Company to take that action was, that a great loss of life annually occurred in consequence of persons trespassing on their lines of railway; and, in 1882, power was given to them to impose penalties upon all offenders. The clause had worked most successfully, and it had been accepted in principle by the Board of Trade, and by the House. Indeed, in the Railway Bill now before the House, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had introduced a clause exactly similar to that which the Great Western Railway Company put into their Bill in 1882. Surely that was a precedent to satisfy the House that Parliament had not abstained from altering the general law and imposing penalties, where they were of opinion that the necessities of the case demanded it, in order to put a stop to practices which the general law had been found nugatory to prevent. He hoped the House would agree to read the Bill a third time. It would be a very hard measure indeed to throw out a Bill introduced for other purposes, on account of a clause inserted specially at the instance of the Board of Trade, and required in the interests of the public safety. At any rate, the
    984
    House might well pause before they rejected the Bill on that account, because it would have to go to "another place," where there would still be an appeal. His own opinion was that the proper course for his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to have taken would have been to appeal to the House of Lords, if he entertained so strong an objection to the principle of this clause; but it would be extremely hard to throw out the measure, as his hon. Friend was now endeavouring, simply on account of one clause contained in it. If the Bill were read a third time now, it would go up to the House of Lords; and if that House disapproved of the clause, they had full power to strike it out.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that although, as a rule, he was generally inclined to view with suspicion the proposals and action of Railway Directors, he wished to express an opinion that, in this case, the House ought to support them, and not be led away by the appeal of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler). He would point out to the hon. Member that he was taking a heavy and an unpleasant responsibility upon himself, which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought the House would feel disinclined to share with him, and that was that if, owing to the statements the hon. Member had put forward, the House threw out the Bill, and an accident occurred, in consequence of carelessness on the part of those in charge of a traction engine, which involved loss of life, that loss of life would be attributed to the action of the hon. Member. What was the Motion of the hon. Member? He thought it was a pure technicality, and rather a miserable technicality. Yet, for the sake of this technicality, the hon. Member was willing to risk the loss of human life. At the time the Locomotive Act was passed in 1861 these traction engines were very little known or understood, not having been fully developed; but he thought that anybody who lived in the country would know how extremely little care was exercised in conducting them by the persons in charge of thorn, and what trouble they gave to the county authorities by breaking down the bridges and cutting up the roads. Accidents continually arose from the total want of

    985
    caution which distinguished the persons placed in charge of them. He thought the person, who had put the present clause into the Bill had strong reason for doing so. All they had done was to do that which the House of Commons always tried to enforce upon Railway Companies as part of their duty — namely, that they should make proper provisions for the safety of human life. Under those circumstances, he trusted the House would support the efforts of Railway Directors to comply with the suggestions of the Board of Trade.
    SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEYsaid, that, as one of the travelling public, he must add his voice to that of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock in opposition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler). He was satisfied that this clause was a necessary one; and it would be highly objectionable, because it altered the general law, to say that a hard-and-fast line should be drawn, and that it should not be accepted. It was most necessary, from time to time, to frame bye-laws for regulating the use of railways in the interests of the safety of the public; and, not unfrequently, when bye-laws were passed, they became subsequently incorporated in a General Act. This was an experiment which the Great Western Railway Company proposed to carry out, and he believed it would prove of great advantage to the travelling public. The Company simply asked, by a bye-law, to give protection to the public; and this bye-law was not only approved by the Board of Trade, but had been introduced at the instance of that Board. It was a source of extreme danger to have these heavy traction engines passing over a line of railway, without any practical control being exercised over them, they being merely conducted at the simple motion of the persons in charge of them. All that the clause did, was to provide that the Board of Trade should have the supervision of any regulations which might affect the moving of traction engines over level crossings, and that Department might safely be trusted to exercise their discretion in a proper manner. These locomotives formed, at the present moment, an element of great danger to the travelling public. According to the evidence of Mr. Grierson, before the Committee, all
    986
    that was required was that the owners of the engines should give notice to the railway authorities, before proceeding to move them, so that proper precautions might be taken for the protection of the public.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that one might suppose, from the character of the remarks which had fallen from previous speakers, that Railway Companies left those level crossings totally uncared for and unattended, and that the public could cross and recross them at any moment they thought proper. But what was the fact? At level crossings there was a gatekeeper. ["No, no!"] There was at every level crossing he was acquainted with; and he could only say that if the Railway Companies did not place a gatekeeper at every level crossing, they ought to do so. Level crossings were essentially dangerous, whether in charge of a gatekeeper or not, and if Railway Companies were so negligent of the safety of the public as to leave a level crossing uncared for and unattended, they were highly reprehensible. He hoped the House would allow him to direct their attention to one important fact. These traction engines had now been in general use for 20 or 25 years, and no accident had ever occurred to a railway train through the passing of such an engine over a level crossing. He had asked the officials of the Great Western Railway Company the other day if they could give a single instance in which an accident had happened from a traction engine passing over a level crossing, and the reply was —"No, we cannot; but we have been very near it." If an accident should happen, it would be in consequence of the neglect of the Company in not properly supervising their railway; and it was clearly their duty to guard their own property. He would put the case upon higher ground. Steam power had become a necessity in modern agriculture. Agriculture, in the present day, could not be carried on without steam power, and but for the assistance it gave, a large portion of the strong land of the country would go out of cultivation; Parliament ought not, therefore, to sanction impediments to its use. The Railway Companies were empowered to build bridges, and they ought to see that they were strong enough to resist

    987
    damage by the passing over them of these steam traction engines. Those machines ought to be used, subject only to regulations laid down by the local authorities.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not consider it a part of my duty to express an opinion upon Private Bills as a rule; but this is an exceptional case, in which, in the public interest, seeing that the public safety is concerned, it is as well that I should give the House my view on the matter. I must confess that I think the course pursued by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) a most extraordinary one. He actually proposes that the Railway Company in question should be punished, by being treated in the mariner he has suggested, in consequence of there being a clause in the Bill which was not inserted in their own interest, or at their suggestion, but at the suggestion of the special Department charged with the duty of watching over the public safety. He raises a question of principle, and asks I whether it would not be desirable to settle the whole matter by a General Bill. I dare say it would; but the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what are the difficulties in the way of passing a General Bill. He knows that if we had to wait until we obtained a favourable opportunity for introducing such a measure in a Session crowded with general Business, such as this is, that we should have very little prospect of bringing it to a successful issue. Meanwhile, he knows that there is a constant source of danger existing on this particular line, which this clause is intended to obviate. One of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade (Colonel Yolland) has reported in favour of such a provision, and has declared that accidents which might have been attended with most serious results, and brought about untold loss of life, have several times been within an ace of happening in consequence of the want of sufficient precautions in this matter. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Howard) says there is no danger to be apprehended, because the Railway Companies are obliged to keep caretakers to take charge of the gates at every level crossing. The hon. Gentleman evidently knows a great deal more about traction engines than he does about the management of railways; because, as a
    988
    matter of fact, caretakers are never placed at level crossings over occupation roads. It seems to me that it would be unfair to burden Companies with such an obligation as that proposed; and I think the scheme in the Bill a very reasonable one, and that there is not the slightest fear that it will interfere with legitimate trade, for their bye-laws will have to be submitted to the Board of Trade, who will take care that everything is contained therein necessary for the public safety. I hope the House will not throw out the Bill, because, as I have said, the Department with which I am connected has introduced this provision purely in the interest of the safety of the public.
    MR. MACLIVERsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), he trusted his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Fowler) would not proceed to a Division against the third reading of the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had opened up an interesting topic by his speech; but, at the same time, he (Mr. Macliver) was bound to say that no Company in the country had ever taken greater care of life and property on their line than had the Great Western. They were greatly to be commended for the policy hitherto pursued; and, therefore, he desired to join in recommending that the Bill be now read a third time.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he had no wish to put the House to the trouble of a Division. Therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. He wished, further, to say that it would be perfectly easy for Her Majesty's Government, if so minded, to allow the Bill to be read a third time, on the understanding that the clause would not be proceeded with in "another place." His object in moving the rejection of the Bill had been to get a general expression of opinion from the House on the matter. He begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to (Queen's Consent signified).
    Bill read the third time, and passed, with a New Title.

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LABOURERS' ACT) (No. 4) BILL.— [BILL 202.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Mr. Trevelyan.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (LABOURERS' ACT) (No. 4) BILL.— [BILL 202.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to ask the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) what was the stage, and to what district of Ireland the Bill referred?
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the stage they were taking was purely a matter of form—namely, that the Bill be considered prior to being read a third time.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he must apologize for making any remarks upon a question of form in connection with a Private Bill; but his point was this—that there had been a Bill brought down from Committee upstairs, which, in his opinion, had been altered for the worse to such an extent that he should feel it Ms duty to oppose it on the third reading. If the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was unable to tell him what the Bill was, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be obliged to ask someone else. Perhaps he would be putting himself more in Order in these observations if he moved that the debate be adjourned. He supposed such a Motion would be in Order?
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the stage was merely that of Consideration.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that the Bill be now considered.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he believed that on that Question he should be in Order in moving "That the Debate on the Motion be adjourned."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the most convenient course would be that the Bill should stand over for Consideration by Order for a subsequent day.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to know to what district the Bill referred?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Bill dealt with the Nenagh Union, County Tipperary. He did not know whether that
    990
    was the Bill to which the hon. Member wished to draw attention.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It is exactly the Bill.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday next.

QUESTIONS.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— "RESULTS FEES."
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that teachers in the poorest parts of the West of Ireland are deprived by the National Board of half "result fees" unless the pupils who, on account of their extreme poverty, are exempted from any school fees in those parts lay down shilling for shilling with National Board of the second moiety; were not the teachers paid the full amount of results fees a few years ago without any charge upon the pupils, and what is the cause of the change in the rule; and, is it the fact that the result of compelling children to pay "school fees" in those poor districts, where they were never obliged to pay, and where they can scarcely get clothing to cover themselves, is that many of them stay away from school because of their inability to pay the fees?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is true that, at the start, the Government paid the entire of the results fees earned by teachers without reference to contributions; but this was sanctioned only when the system was in its infancy, and has not been done since 1874. Several changes of practice were made from, time to time, and, in 1876, the Government sanctioned payment of a contingent moiety in schools in non-contributory Unions, on condition that the local contributions from all sources equalled such moiety. Unless those contributions equalled the whole moiety, nothing was paid by the Government. In 1880 this rule was relaxed in favour of the teachers, by allowing payment of so much of the contingent moiety as would be met by local contributions from all sources—not merely by school pence as indicated in the Question. The Commissioners on National Education are unaware of any cases where pupils are compelled to pay school fees contrary to usage, or where

  991
  they are obliged to remain away from school owing to their inability to pay the fees demanded. Perhaps the hon. Member will give an instance?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not wish to give an instance, as it might be said that the teacher communicated with him; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inquire into the state of facts in Connemara, with the object of seeing whether the people were not too poor to pay any contribution which would enable the teachers to get the benefit of results fees?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes; I will look into the matter with special reference to pressure being put upon the pupils.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—ANNUAL EXAMINATION OF TEACHERS—NAMES OF EXAMINERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland conceal from the public the names of the examiners appointed by them to conduct the annual examination of teachers; whether, as a consequence, questions, or perhaps whole pages of questions, have frequently been given, outside the prescribed course, on the teacher's programme; whether the Commissioners of National Education will for the future, like the Universities, South Kensington Department, and the Intermediate Education Board, place upon each set of questions the name of the examiner on that subject; and, whether the names of the examiners appointed to conduct the next July examinations will be given; and, if not, would he explain the reason?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there is no concealment whatever in the matter, and that it would be impossible to put the names of the Examiners on the examination paper, as their preparation, as well as the examination of the candidates' answers, is a joint work, and not done exclusively by individuals. The Commissioners have furnished me with a memorandum of the system of examination adopted, which seems both efficient and fair. I should be glad to show it to any hon. Member who wishes to see it.
  MR. HEALY: Will it be laid on the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no objection to that.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELY DISPENSARY, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is with the concurrence of the Local Government Board for Ireland that the Ely Dispensary, in the town of Derrygonnilly, county Fermanagh, is used as the head-quarters of the Orange Flute Band, where its uniform and musical instruments are deposited; do the members of Derrygonnilly Orange Lodge use this Dispensary as a place of meeting; are the Orange flags stored there; and, are these flags, and party emblems, hung out from its windows on Orange anniversaries?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The replies to the inquiries made in this case have not yet been received. The Question has been on the Paper three days; but, no doubt, it was necessary first to send to the County Fermanagh for a report, and subsequently to have the matter considered by the Local Government Board.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CORONERSHIP OF LEITRIM.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether arrangements have been made for the election of a successor to fill up the vacancy in the office of coroner, which took place in county Leitrim on 6th May last; and, if not, will he have the necessary steps taken without further delay?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that no arrangements have yet been made to fill up the vacancy. The law does not empower me to take any steps in the matter. The course prescribed by the Statute is, that any two Justices may deliver to the clerk of the peace a certificate of the vacancy, and the Lord Chancellor, on receiving the certificate, is to issue a writ for the election of a now Coroner. The Lord Chancellor is prepared to issue such writ on the proper preliminaries being complied with.
  MR. BIGGAR: But if two local magistrates do not think fit to sign a notice, can there be no election?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There has been some such difficulty on former occasions,

  993
  and official pressure had to be brought to bear. I will look into the question.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND) — FEMALE TELEGRAPH CLERKS, DUBLIN OFFICE—SPECIAL DUTY.
  MR. BIGGAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, Why were three terms of special duty, in 1883, with per diem allowance attached, which were supplied from the Dublin Telegraph Office last year, given to one female telegraphist? Is it true that, on the third occasion, although absent from the office on sick leave, instructions were sent to said telegraphist at her private residence to proceed on this duty; and will he see that these special duties are fairly divided amongst the Dublin female telegraphists?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, there were only a limited number of telegraphists qualified for the special duty referred to by the hon. Member; and, so far as he was able to ascertain, the duty had not been unequally apportioned. With regard to the particular case mentioned of a female telegraphist being asked to perform one of these special duties when in ill-health, he explained that it was to assist at an office at the seaside, and it was thought that the change would do her good.

  PERU AND CHILI—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS.
  MR. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether or not he can confirm a statement, made in a circular recently issued by the Peruvian Bondholders' Committee, to the effect that the approval of Her Majesty's Government had been given to the sending of a Representative to Chili in the interest of the Bondholders; and, whether it is to be understood, by the sending of this Representative to Chili, that Diplomatic action by the Government, in regard to the claims of the Bondholders, has now ceased?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that on application being made, an ordinary letter of introduction to Her Majesty's Minister in Chili was sent to the agent of the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders. This letter contained no reference to the object of the mission; and, as stated in the letter forwarding it, only authorized Mr.
  994
  Pakenham to extend to Mr. Smiles the civilities offered by Representatives of Her Majesty to gentlemen travelling abroad. No approval whatever by Her Majesty's Government of the proposed mission was asked for or given. The Committee had acted entirely on their own responsibility in sending out an agent to Chili, and his mission was of a private character. He could not say that the mission of Mr. Smiles would terminate the diplomatic action of the Government, with regard to the recent Treaty, as there was no connection between the mission and diplomatic action. He had already informed the hon. Member that no action in favour of the Bondholders as such had been or would be taken by the Government, and it might be hoped that these questions would be settled by private arrangement. The Government only interfered to protest against a violation of accepted principles of international law.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked, whether the noble Lord was aware that he, as Chairman of the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders, called with Mr. Smiles at the Foreign Office and saw Sir Julian Pauncefote, who expressed his entire approbation of Mr. Smiles's mission, and stated how glad he was that Mr. Smiles was going out?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am quite aware of what transpired at that interview; but I do not consider that anything justified the issuing of this circular.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked, whether the noble Lord was aware that the hon. Member who put the Question was a member of the firm of Balfour and Williamson, who were greatly interested in the affairs of Peru and Chili, and that the Question was prompted by private motives?
  [No reply.]
  MR. RAISES: After what the noble Lord has admitted—
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have admitted nothing.
  MR. RAIKES: I understand the noble Lord to say he was perfectly aware of the interview with my hon. Friend and Sir Julian Pauncefote.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said I was quite aware of what passed at that interview, and that nothing that passed at that interview in any way

  995
  justified the issue of the circular in question.
  MR. RAIKESasked, whether the noble Lord was not now willing to admit that the circular or the statement contained in it had been demanded after the interview?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he would admit nothing, his answer having been clear, and, as he should have thought, satisfactory.
  MR. RAIKES: The noble Lord was aware that this interview had taken place; and I wish to ask, whether he is not willing to withdraw his previous statement that no approbation on the part of the Foreign Office had been solicited or asked?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I do not withdraw it—quite the contrary.

  NAVY—H. M. S. "VIVID"—FATAL CASUALTY AT PLYMOUTH.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been drawn to the collision which occurred at Plymouth on Sunday June 8th, when H. M. S. Vivid cut down a pleasure-boat in the Hamoaze, causing a loss of two lives; and, whether an official inquiry is intended to ascertain if any one is responsible for this disaster?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN, in reply, said, that on receiving the report of this lamentable occurrence the Board of Admiralty ordered a court martial to be held upon the officer who was in command of the Vivid at the time.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— LOANS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. LEAHY (for Mr. O'SULLIVAN)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that parties looking for loans in Ireland under the Land Act of 1881 are often detained from three to five months after the preliminaries are complied with before they get the first instalment of their loan; and, if so, will he take any steps to facilitate the proceedings in such cases?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, he was informed that there were very few, if any, cases of delay in the working of this scheme. Those which occurred were the fault of the applicants themselves. Great difficulty was experienced in getting forms of application properly filled up and worked out.

  ARMY (COMMISSARIAT)—GARRISONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the greater portion of provisions and necessaries required for the mess in connection with the garrison at Mullingar is supplied from England; and, whether this is also the case with regard to other garrisons in Ireland; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps towards remedying such a state of things?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it is left entirely to the mess of each regiment to decide whence to obtain its supplies, and it must mainly rest with the local tradesmen whether a mess finds its advantage in dealing with them.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SEC. 14—HOUSE SEARCH BY THE POLICE, DURRUS, BANTRY, CO. CORK.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on the morning of the 14th inst. Inspector Frayelli and a party of Constabulary armed entered the house of James Francis O'Regan, of Durrus, Bantry, county Cork, and, upon the plea of searching for arms, seized forcibly and carried off several copies of a paper called United Ireland, and also a number of private letters belonging to Mr. O'Regan and other persons; and, if this be the case, whether he will cause these letters to be immediately returned to Mr. O'Regan; and, whether he will take steps to punish Inspector Frayelli for seizing private and lawful property.
  MR. TREVELYAN: District Inspector Frizell and a party of Constabulary entered Mr. John O'Regan's house to search it, under the Lord Lieutenant's Warrant, issued under Section 14 of the Prevention of Crime Act. They found some documents which they considered to be of a, seditious and illegal character, and which they seized. Thinking it necessary to continue the search through a number of other documents, the District Inspector, to lessen the inconvenience to the family, and with the consent of Mr. O'Regan, took them away for the purpose, wrapped in an old newspaper. This happened to be a copy of United Ireland, and that is the only ground for

  997
  the suggestion that copies of that paper were seized. The newspaper was subsequently returned, with such of the documents as it was not considered necessary to detain.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman considered it desirable to leave to the discretion of policemen in Ireland the decision of what papers were seditious? He might say that he had distinct information that these papers were all of a private character. ["Order!"]
  [No reply.]

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS ACT, 1875 (IRELAND)—AMENDMENT.
  COLONEL COLTHURST (for Mr. MELDON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it is proposed, as promised, to introduce a Bill to amend the National School Teachers Act, 1875 (Ireland); and, if it is proposed to introduce a Bill to effect this object alone, or is it intended to promote legislation to include this question in a general Education Bill?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I hope to introduce the Education Bill in time to have it passed, in the case of its meeting with a reasonable amount of acceptance from Members interested in the question. It is proposed to include other subjects in the Bill, including the provision of sites for schools.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—GENERAL GORDON.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the date of the last tidings received from General Gordon by the Government; have the Government yet learned whether General Gordon received (a) their Despatch of 23rd April 1884, or (b) their last Despatch of 18th May 1884; and, have the Government taken any, and, if so, what steps, since the 23rd May, to communicate with General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The date of the latest despatch from General Gordon is, as I have already stated, the 10th of April. At least 20 different copies of the despatch of the 23rd of April have been sent by different routes. A large discretion has, however, been left to Her Majesty's Acting Consul General to multiply messengers and to use whatever means he may con-
  998
  sider advisable. I am not aware that any of these messengers started later than May 21. The Mudir of Dongola think that one of these messengers has entered Khartoum. On the 19th instant a message was received through Her Majesty's Consul at Suakin from Colonel Chermside, to the effect that one of these messengers whom he had despatched on the 13th of May, having been taken ill near Berber, had sent on his brother and a companion with the despatch of April 23 by boat to Khartoum, where he remained for three hours. General Gordon, or another Englishman, came to the boat with him, and gave him a letter. On the road from Berber the messengers were pursued, and the bearer of the letter was killed; but, as the same messenger was the person who stated that he and his companion had been at Berber and gone, it seems, on a day subsequent to that on which it is now alleged to have fallen, these statements must be read with caution. I may also mention that a telegram had been received from Mr. Egerton, stating that Major Chermside telegraphed on the 19th that 21 Tahroori pilgrims arrived at Suakin the day before, 38 days from Khartoum, which place they reported quiet, with provisions cheap, and that Gordon had news from Kassala of the defeat of the Hadendowas.
  MR. GIBSON: The noble Lord has, in his statement, made the remark that some of the information which had reached the Foreign Office must be read with great caution. I wish to ask whether the Government have received any answer with reference to their despatch of May 18th?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have given the House all the information in our possession, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman may assume there is no news in respect to it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the noble Lord say, whether the communications with General Gordon include the appointment of messengers by Zebehr Pasha?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: One of these messages has been sent by an agent selected by Zebehr Pasha.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: By Zebehr as an agent of the British. Government communicating with General Gordon?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: That does cot necessarily follow. Her Majesty's Government considered it might be one means of communicating with him.

  EGYPT — ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT—TREATY WITH ABYSSINIA.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the terms of the Treaty lately made by Admiral Hewett with Abyssinia?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAUEICE: Neither Admiral Hewett's Report nor the text of the Treaty have yet been received; and, pending their receipt, it is not in my power to make any statement in addition to that which I made on the 12th instant.

  EGYPT (THE SOUDAN) — PROPOSED RAILWAY BETWEEN BERBER AND SUAKIN.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can give the House any information with respect to the alleged proposed railroad between the Red Sea and the Nile?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government stated the other day, in the House, that the question of the possible construction of the railway from Suakin to Berber had been, among other subjects, under the consideration of the Government. I do not think it possible for me at present to add anything to that statement, except to say that certain preliminary steps have been taken by the Government with the view to such a possible contingency; but, up to the present, the Government have not come to a decision to construct such a railway.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 109.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. TREVELYAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as no statement was made on introducing the Bill, it would be respect-
    1000
    ful to the House that he should make some remarks on the present occasion, although it was very seldom that so important a Bill as that, and one which excited so much interest, could be argued in so narrow a compass. The Bill contained two propositions—the first, to render the closing of public-houses on Sunday perpetual throughout those parts of Ireland where they were already closed; and the second, to extend Sunday closing to the five towns which were at the present time exempted. Those were propositions which could, to a certain extent, be argued together; because if it could be proved that the effect of closing public-houses on Sundays was advantageous, they should have a reason, not only for making it perpetual in the parts of Ireland where it was at present in force, but for extending it to those towns where it was not in force; unless some special reason could be shown to the contrary. Now, on the question whether Sunday closing had been a blessing to the community, there was certainly a difference of opinion; and the unfavourable view was expressed, as well as it could possibly be expressed, by a very important deputation which waited on him on January 27th last year. That deputation handled the case against Sunday closing very ably; and he promised not to put by their views lightly, and to make extensive inquiries as to the operations of the Act where it was in operation, and its probable operations in the parts where it was not already in force. He directed those inquiries with special reference to the arguments used by the deputation. He called, as he promised to call, for the opinions of a great number of Government officials all the country over, some of whom were responsible for the order of the various districts; and others, the Local Government Board officers, who were conversant with the social state of the country, and who had both of them considerable opportunity of collecting the public opinion of the country on subjects which could not be classed as political. He had studied the statistics resulting from those inquiries closely, in the light of the very broad combinations in which they had been placed by the advocates and opponents of the measure, and he had come to the conclusion that Sunday closing had been a great and almost

    1001
    unmixed benefit to those parts of the country where it had been in operation, and that it might be hopefully and confidently extended to the five exempted towns. The Sunday closing measure practically came into operation in the last quarter of 1878. It was supposed to come into operation immediately it passed; but the existing licences, running until the 18th of October in that year, 1879, was the first year in which experience was had of the working of the new system. In the four years preceding Sunday closing, the Sunday arrests for drunkenness were as follows: — In 1875, 5,200; in 1876, 5,900; in 1877, 5,600; and in 1878, 5,400. He was now referring to Ireland outside the five exempted towns. Late, in 1878, came the Sunday Closing Act; and, in 1879, Sunday arrests dropped at once to 2,400. In the towns that were exempted from the Act, except so far as it curtailed the hours of sale, the arrests for Sunday drunkenness were in 1878, 4,500, and in 1879, 4,300. Now, the diminution in one year of Sunday drunkenness by one-half of what it had been was, in itself, a gain to humanity of enormous magnitude. Sunday was the day on which the working classes had leisure, and the day on which the habits of the week, and often of the life, were formed. Therefore, the sudden fall of 50 per cent in the Sunday drunkenness meant that a great number of young working men and lads would never acquire drinking habits; and that a great number of homes would, in the future, be spared an amount of misery which it was scarcely possible to calculate. Many statistics had been adduced, and with considerable success, to show that, in the exempted towns, there had been a great falling off of drunkenness; but what those figures had not proved, and what they could never prove, was that it would not be a great benefit to Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Waterford, and Limerick, if, between one year and another, the number of persons intoxicated on Sundays suddenly fell off to one-half what it was at present. This was a point which had, he thought, been passed over by the opponents of the measure. There was an immense margin for improvement in the amount of drunkenness in those towns; for, relatively to population, Sunday drunkenness was five times as great in
    1002
    the exempted as it was in the other parts of Ireland. In the exempted towns the population was 681,000; the Sunday arrests in last year were 2,923; that was, 1 in 230 of the population. In the rest of Ireland, the population was 4,650,000; the Sunday arrests were 3,736. That was, 1 in 1,220 of the population. If hon. Gentlemen could bring together any figures or arguments to shake that fact, they would do much to defeat the Bill; for upon that broad, simple, and significant fact, the main argument of the Bill stood, and he believed it stood safely. He would next take the proportion of Sunday and week-day drunkenness in the exempted and included towns respectively. In the non-exempted towns, there were 3,736 cases of Sunday drunkenness, and on week days, 64,800. That was, in the part of Ireland where Sunday closing was in force, there was one case of Sunday drunkenness to 17 of week-day drunkenness; while, in the exempted districts, the cases of Sunday drunkenness were 2,923, and of weekday drunkenness were 18,689, or one case of Sunday drunkenness to six of week-day drunkenness. That was to say, instead of Sunday being purer and better, it was in the non-exempted towns somewhat more disreputable and discreditable than any other day in the week. But, beside the evidence of figures, he wished to lay before the House the evidence of men who were well qualified to judge; and it was impossible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony he had obtained from the Bishops and clergymen of the two Churches, and of other denominations, doctors, Town Councillors, Poor Law Guardians, and other professional classes, all of which had been frequently quoted, and was well known. He wished also to have official opinion, and in considering the question he had determined to institute an inquiry which would cover the whole of Ireland and the whole case, and he accordingly addressed a number of questions to all the Resident Magistrates, the questions being almost entirely taken from the arguments upon which the opponents of the Bill relied for their opposition. The first question was—"Whether the Act tends to promote the peace of the country, and order and sobriety?" To this question, from Connaught, he got 21 answers, all of them favourable to the Act; from

    1003
    Munster, 26 answers, 24 being strongly favourable, one unfavourable, and one doubtful, or, at any rate, cold.
    MR. HEALT: What district of Munster did the doubtful answer come from?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was not able to supply the hon. Member with that information on the spot. From Ulster he obtained 12 answers, all favourable; and from Leinster 18 answers, all favourable. The next question was—"Whether the Act had led to an increase of shebeen houses." Sixty-two stated it had not led to an increase; six that it had; and six spoke in a qualified manner, stating it had not done so to any considerable extent. The next question was—"Whether it had led to unlawful sales, and drinking in unlawful hours?" It was obvious here a very favourable answer could not be expected; for, of course, a restricting law always increased the occasions for breaking the law. To this question, out of 74 Resident Magistrates 25 answered in the negative very decidedly, and 20 very decidedly in the affirmative. The others gave qualified answers, implying that the difference was not very appreciable; but it was plain that there was a considerable amount of drinking in unlawful hours and evasion of the Act on Sundays. The next question was—" Did it lead to an increase of illicit distillation?" Out of 74 Resident Magistrates, all but three were in the negative, and these three were to the effect that it might possibly have done so. On this point, the general figures showed that the number of illicit stills detected in seven years before the passing of the Act, was 840; while, in eight years, under the Act they only numbered 740. It should be remembered that last year there were only eight cases of illicit stills found in the whole of Scotland, and that was higher than in the nine previous years. But if the arguments of the opponents of the measure were valid, as Scotland had been for many years under the operation of the Act, the country should now be filled with illicit stills. Finally he asked—"What is the opinion as to the justice and expediency of the Act among the people whom it most affected?" Upon this point, the Reports of the Resident Magistrates, as to the public opinion of their districts, was most remarkably strong in
    1004
    favour of the Act. The result was virtually such as to settle the opinion and the action of the Government. The Executive might have left the matter alone, and might have remained in ignorance of the feeling about it; but when once they had inquired and satisfied themselves that the opinion of the people was favourable to the permanence and extension of Sunday closing, he maintained they could take no course but that which he now asked the House to take. Besides the inquiry of Resident Magistrates, they inquired of a few Inspectors of the Local Government Board. Two Reports he had got, and two only, from them. The first stated that in a very important town of Ireland there was a considerable number of publicans in favour of the Bill; and added that some of the leading publicans already closed their houses on Sunday, and that others would willingly do so if they were emancipated from the pressure and commercial danger of competition. The other Report was from Dr. M'Cabe, who stated that he had spoken to many persons well acquainted with the wishes and feelings of the artizans and labourers of Dublin on this question. The result of all the information he had gained, as to the wishes of the class who were supposed to make use of public-houses on Sundays, and who would be inconvenienced by the measure, might be stated thus—The artizans and labourers might be divided into three classes: first, the honest and hard-working men who devoted their wages to the support of their families; they did not resort to public-houses on Sundays, and were in favour of the total closing. If he (Mr. Trevelyan) had been making this Report, he should have left out the word "honest," because there was no question at all of the honesty of the artizans and labourers of Dublin. The Report proceeded to state that the second class, consisting of hard drinkers, was in favour of public-houses being open at all hours and in all places; and these people could get drink, whether the public-houses were open or not. The third was a very numerous class; including those who were weak of purpose and easily led by bad company to drink. These would be safe from temptation, if public-houses were closed on Sundays, and they were in favour of being spared a source of temptation

    1005
    which they had not always courage to resist. He would add that, with regard to the wives in all the three classes, they were in favour of total closure. That was the opinion, so far as it went, in favour of the Act, and it must be remembered that it was a growing opinion. As the Act became more and more familiar to the people, as a generation grew up, whose habits were formed under its influence, the class who resented it and tried to evade its provisions would become smaller and smaller. The experience of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act in Scotland was certainly in favour of a similar measure for Ireland. He had received a letter from an intelligent and influential Scotchman, who had a considerable acquaintance with Scotch working men, being one himself for a long period of his life, and who had raised himself from the position, and who had had great experience of the operation of the Act. His correspondent said that he could well remember the great amount of irritation which the closing of licensed houses at first caused; but, year by year, the law was becoming more and more accepted. Sunday drinking was almost unknown, and attendance at work on Mondays was much more punctual and regular. His correspondent even went so far as to say that the Scotch drinksellers themselves would hardly ask to have the Act repealed. It would be said that this was all very well for the country districts and smaller towns in Ireland; but it would not do for the large towns and for Dublin. His Excellency, therefore, thought it right to consult the Recorder and the Dublin Magistrates, directing attention especially to the probability of disturbance in consequence of the Act being put in force in Dublin. On this last point, their answers fully re-assured Lord Spencer and those who acted with him. With one exception, all the gentlemen who were responsible for the peace of Dublin were in favour of Sunday closing. Indeed, the position of the excepted districts was one especially disadvantageous to those who were responsible for the preservation of order, for it was not a good thing to have one law for one place, and another for another. The Dublin Metropolitan Police district was infested by roughs from the neighbouring petty sessions districts, who came into Dublin for the sole purpose
    1006
    of getting drink. But any question as to the difference between the large towns and the rest of the country was entirely disposed of by the evidence of Glasgow. Glasgow had twice the population of Dublin, and an Irish population very much larger than Limerick, and twice larger than that of Waterford. The Forbes-Mackenzie Act came into operation in 1854. During the three years preceding, the average number of persons arrested for drunkenness on Sunday in Glasgow was 26; during the three years following, the number was less than 10, and, as compared with week-days, there was now, on an average, nine or 10 arrests on a week-day and one on Sunday. The Chief Constable of Glasgow reported that the police-stations were now extremely quiet on a Sunday, especially the Central Station, and that there was often not a single arrest on that day. That immense advantage had been purchased without any detriment to the public peace. In Edinburgh the effect of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was that the Sunday arrests fell from an average of seven to an average of two. He also held in his hand a Return of the arrests for drunkenness in Scotland in towns of over 29,000 of a population. He took that number because it came as near as possible to the population of Waterford; and therefore the comparison with Irish towns, other things being equal, was perfectly legitimate. In Aberdeen, between 6 on Saturday morning and 6 on Sunday morning—that was to say, roughly, on Saturday, there were 413 persons arrested for drunkenness in the course of the year. On Sunday there were only 32. In Edinburgh, there were 935 persons arrested for drunkenness on Saturdays; on Sundays there were 98. In Glasgow, 5,956 persons were arrested on Saturdays; on Sundays there were only 427. In Perth, 77 persons were arrested on Saturdays; and only 6 on Sundays. In Greenock, which was a remarkable exception, 713 persons were arrested on Saturdays; and 36 on Sundays. In Paisley, 482 on Saturdays; and 71 on Sundays; and, if he took his own constituency, which grouped was about the size of Waterford, there were 74 people arrested on Saturdays; and only 6 on Sundays. These Returns afforded a pretty fair conclusive answer to the allegation that secret drinking would take the place

    1007
    of public drinking on Sundays. In his own house, a man was surrounded by wholesome influences, which prevented him from going wrong; but, in a public-house, he was served as long as he had money to pay, or people to treat him; and the company he met there was made up of the sort of people who were likely to lead him onward in the downward track. There was a great deal of talk about there being one law for the rich and another for the poor. In his opinion, they ought to have one law for the rich and another for the poor—[Laughter.]—he meant the same for the rich and for the poor. He was quite certain that if the poor, like the rich, drank only at home at their meals, there would be much less drunkenness among them; it would be a very good thing for the rich man, who frequented the bar of an hotel, if he could be made to desist from doing so; and if the poor man had not enough of self-control to have a stock of drink to suit his requirements, he must be a very poor man indeed. They were told that, by passing this Act, they would be confining these people to their wretched homes. Their homes would be wretched as long as they spent in keeping up the splendour of gin palaces the money which should make their homes comfortable. In arguing this question he felt sure hon. Gentlemen forgot how very large proportion of the working men's income went in drink. It was not an exaggeration to say that in numberless cases as much as 7s. or 8s.—or one-third—of the weekly wages of working men, earning a guinea, or 23 s., or 24 s., frequently went in this way. What would be thought of a landed proprietor or professional gentleman, who spent one-third of his income in drink? Why, he would be regarded as a fit person for a lunatic asylum. He wanted to pass this Bill in order that there might be one law for both the rich and the poor; for he was in favour of no distinction being made between them. That the poor might learn what was best in the habits of the rich; that they might take their Sunday meal in the company of those who looked up to them for assistance; and have enough left out of their weekly earnings to make that meal a much better one than it often was now; and to enable them to take Sunday excursions, with their children, which were much better for their health and happiness
    1008
    than all the public-houses in the world. In order to do that, they must abstain from public-houses, and from drinking in them on Sundays. He was convinced that an experience of five or 10 years, or a generation, would make the people almost unanimous in approval of the Act if it were extended, as the Bill proposed. It was for these reasons that he earnestly hoped that the House would give a second reading to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he was sorry that the Bill had been sprung upon the House unexpectedly; and that, in consequence, neither of the hon. Gentlemen who had given Notice of their intention to move its rejection were in their places. He also regretted that someone more competent than he was had not risen to oppose the Bill in the interest of the working man. The working man, unfortunately, was not represented in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had dwelt at length upon the decrease in the convictions for drunkenness, and had given the House a great many figures, in order to prove—if they were correct and not misstatements made to him by the fanatics who had so great an interest in the Bill—that a great deal of good had resulted from the working of the Sunday Closing Bill in Ireland. Figures, it was well known, would prove almost anything. Although the right hon. Gentleman had shown—and, no doubt, it was correct—that, at the present, there were fewer convictions for drunkenness in Ireland in consequence of the working of this Act, he (Mr. M. Brooks) could assure the House that, although drunkenness might have decreased in the country districts, where the people had been prevented from following their ordinary and natural habits, the aversion and hatred towards the English people and the English Government had increased. He believed, indeed, that the administration of this law had been more disastrous in its results to the people than the drinking which formerly prevailed. He, for one, would rather see his fellow-countrymen free than sober. He believed that the Irish working man was not so free to indulge in social companionship

    1009
    as was his English or Scotch fellow-subject. From his connection, extending over many years, with the Irish working men, he had reason to know their opinions very well. He could say with great confidence, therefore, that, at least, a moiety of the working men of Dublin, if they had the power to send Members to the House to represent their opinions in regard to their freedom to indulge in social companionship on Sundays, would send Members who would certainly oppose the present Bill. He spoke in the interests of working men. He had no connection with brewers, or distillers of drink; neither had he any connection with the gentlemen whom the Chief Secretary for Ireland had described as fanatics, and who were the promoters of this Bill in Ireland. Dublin was the headquarters of that agitation; and, as between the so-called liquor interest on the one hand, and the practical Sunday closers on the other, he had maintained all through an impartial attitude on the question, and he intended to do so to the end. He was unable to concur in the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of Sunday closing, and he could not support the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the good effect of Sunday closing in Scotland, and had read the opinion of a Scotchman upon the subject. He (Mr. M. Brooks) would read to the House, in the same way, the opinion given in a letter, by an ex-constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, whose name for obvious reasons was not published, but which he would be willing to give to the right hon. Gentleman. The letter referred to the manner in which the Act was evaded, how she-beening had increased, and how this kind of legislation tended to give an impetus to the multiplication of infamous places of secret drinking. In reference to the answers which the right hon. Gentleman quoted as having been received from the county magistrates in favour of the Bill, he desired to point out that the great majority of these magistrates were Protestants and Sabbatarians. It would, therefore, be somewhat singular if they were not found to be in favour of Sunday closing; and that applied more especially to the North, where the people were almost Scotch in their habits and feelings. They would not permit the Catholics of Ireland to in-
    1010
    dulge in the harmless amusement and recreations which were common in all Roman Catholic countries as well as in Ireland; and he attached no weight whatever to the opinion of the county magistrates, who would prevent Irishmen from enjoying themselves in clubs or other places on Sunday. He did not quite gather whether the letter read by the right hon. Gentleman from Dr. MacCabe was understood to be from the Cardinal-Archbishop or from the Inspector of the Local Government Board of that name. He believed it was not the Cardinal-Archbishop; because His Eminence had not only spoken to him (Mr. M. Brooks) on the subject, but had written a letter to his hon. Colleague (Dr. Lyons), which he thought would have great weight. In that letter, which was written within the last few weeks, His Eminence had plainly expressed his opinion that total closing would be productive of evil results. Therefore, he had reason to know that Cardinal MacCabe was averse to the passing of the Sunday Closing Bill for Dublin; while with regard to his hon. Colleague, he would have been there that day to oppose it were it not for the sudden way the Bill had been brought on. As to whether there had been a decrease of drunkenness in Ireland since the passing of the Act, he should like to mention a few facts to the House. In 1882 there were five detections of illicit distillations in England, eight in Scotland, and 881 in Ireland. Last year the detections in England were 11; in Scotland, 16; in Ireland, 883. He asked the House what these figures meant? What was the use of shutting up public-houses when they were unable to shut up the shebeens? Nothing more dangerous to the people of a country could exist than illicit places for the distillation of spirits. Although 883 were discovered by the police, it was commonly believed that for every one detected there were five in existence. Many persons in Dublin knew that illicit distillation was common among the people, because they were prevented from obtaining their drink in a lawful manner. The result was, that the people were, not only poisoned by bad drink, but they were made lawbreakers; for the opinion prevailed among working men and others that there was no harm in breaking the law in this respect. The right hon. Gentle-

    1011
    man said that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of the Bill. He (Mr. M. Brooks) denied it. He believed there were not a dozen clergymen or laymen outside the "fanatics" who favoured the Bill. As he said, there had been a letter from the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin on the subject, in which he said that, if not disastrous, it would certainly be most imprudent. [Mr. BLAKE: Produce the letter.] It was not in his possession. ["Oh, oh!"] He supposed that the Dublin Corporation might be taken to fairly represent public opinion in Ireland, and they had expressed themselves in opposition to the Bill by presenting a Memorial to that effect at the Bar of the House. He would ask whether their opinion, and that of more than the majority of the Irish people, ought to have no weight against the opinions of English and Scotch Members? The law would not be the same for the rich as the poor. Clubs for the rich were open not only late on Saturday night, but through the whole of Sunday, while the public-house—the poor man's club—was closed; and he thought that the effect of the Bill would be far from advantageous to the mind of the working man, who saw these clubs open in all the best streets, while the public-houses were shut. The present occasion he believed to be inopportune, for within a few months the working men would have an opportunity of expressing their views under the new Franchise Bill through their elected Representatives in that House. He was clearly of opinion that if they were to have the Representation of the People Bill passed, they would have such a number of Members of Parliament opposed to the Bill sent to that House that they would oppose it successfully. Was there any urgency in the matter? He could see none. The Member who originally introduced this Bill was The O'Conor Don, and he, as well as his supporters, had been superseded by two Gentlemen who were both opposed to Sunday closing. He wished to mention that the constituencies in Ireland had rejected those who expressed themselves in favour of the Bill. This had been the case in Dublin both in 1874 and in 1880. In the former year Sir Dominic Corrigan, a man whose name was universally respected, and Mr. Jonathan Pim, put themselves forward as in favour of Sunday
    1012
    closing, and were both superseded. He believed that no candidate who had ever gone before an Irish constituency as an advocate of Sunday closing had been returned to Parliament. He, therefore, was warranted in saying that this was a piece of class legislation that would be rejected if the working men who would be affected by it could give their voice on the subject.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) had made a series of most extraordinary statements, without giving a single fact to support them. He (Mr. Blake) denied that the last statement of the hon. Member was accurate. As a member of that Church to which the hon. Member, unfortunately for himself, did not belong, he could not allow him to state that one of its highest dignitaries was opposed to Sunday Closing. The hon. Member had stated, in the most distinct manner, that the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin (Cardinal MacCabe) had written a letter expressing opinions adverse to the Bill. He (Mr. Blake) held in his hand, however, a letter, which had been printed and published for some time, and which had not received any contradiction, purporting to be signed in 1882 by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, and the Bishops of Limerick, Waterford, and several other dioceses, to the effect that they believed Sunday closing had diminished drunkenness, and that the Act should be made complete and effective, by the inclusion of the exempted cities. He took it for granted that the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, who wrote to that effect in 1882, would not write in the opposite direction in 1884. If his Eminence had done so in that short time where was the evidence? The hon. Member had further stated that the majority of the people were not in favour of this measure. The fact was that he (Mr. Blake) held in his hand declarations from a large number of Bishops in Ireland, some 19 or 20 in number, in favour of the Bill, including that of the Archbishop of Cashel, whose name would, he was certain, be received with great respect by many Irish Members, and who was anxious that the Bill should become law with as little delay as possible. There was therefore ample evidence in favour of the Bill; but he regretted to say that there was one

    1013
    Bishop in all Ireland—and he was so sorry for him that he would not mention his name—who had expressed himself not in unison with the other Bishops of Ireland. As to the argument of the hon. Member that the Corporation of Dublin were opposed to Sunday closing, the fact must be borne in mind that the vast majority of the Town Council were engaged in the liquor traffic, which was a very strong interest in the City of Dublin. It would, therefore, be an exceedingly extraordinary thing if they were to pronounce an opinion favourable to the Bill. The liquor traffic interest, indeed, was so strong now in the Council that it was a fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Meagher), for whom he had the greatest respect, was engaged in the liquor traffic, and was now Lord Mayor of Dublin. Another gentleman who was Lord Mayor elect was also engaged in the licensed trade; and the fact was, that no one had now much chance of getting into the Corporation who was not a publican. There could not be a stronger argument advanced for the lowering of the franchise in Dublin than this state of affairs in the Council; for, as the franchise stood at present, the public-house interest was in the ascendant. When that was done, he felt confident that the vast majority of working men would show themselves in favour of the Bill when selecting their municipal or Parliamentary Representatives. The hon. Member for the City of Dublin said that no Member who was an advocate of Sunday closing had ever been elected for an Irish constituency. Well, from the first hour, he (Mr. Blake) had been an advocate for Sunday closing, and had been four times returned for the City of Waterford, and had been returned for the county at the last Election, although, on this point, his sentiments were well known; and there were several other hon. Members in the same position. The reason the Bill was not extended to clubs was, that drinking was seldom carried on to excess in them, while the working man needed protection against himself. There was nothing which would afford such benefit to the country as a measure of this character. His own opinion went far beyond its proposals; and he believed that if a Seven-day Closing Bill was introduced and passed,
    1014
    and even every other statute in favour of Ireland, including Catholic emancipation, repealed, in 25 years' time the country would be in a far better state than it was at present. There was nothing for which the present Government deserved more credit, or more support, than their action on this question. He had understood that there was an intention on the part of some Members to talk the measure out; he would, therefore, abstain from quoting statistics. He could do so at length if he chose, and they would establish the fact that there was nothing so well calculated to add very materially to the peace, morality, and prosperity of the country as this measure, very inadequate though it was, for checking the greatest evil under which Ireland suffered.
    MR. EUGENE COLLINSsaid, he was sorry that on that, as on many previous, occasions, he should be obliged to oppose this Bill. He had given the subject involved probably as much attention as most men in his time, and the result of his most deliberate consideration was that he had not changed the opinion which he formed many years ago. He found no fault with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had submitted that important Bill to the House. That right hon. Gentleman had dealt fairly with his main features; he had produced abundance of statistics from his own point of view, and he stated what he believed to be the opinion of the people of Ireland. Well, that was a very important subject. The measure had been before the House and the country for many years, and was very simple so far as concerned the principle involved. Instead of dealing with it upon its merits in general, he (Mr. Eugene Collins) preferred to take the challenge that had been offered to the opponents of the measure by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to deal with it as shortly and as explicitly as it was in his power to do. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the authorities he had consulted, the passing of this Bill would be a great blessing to Ireland. He (Mr. Eugene Collins) did not dissent from the doctrine that a limitation of intemperance would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred, not only on Ireland, but upon any country; and he would be the last man in the

    1015
    House to question the honesty, sincerity, and goodwill of those who advocated the measure—including, in the first place, that of the Catholic clergy who supported it. He respected that section of public opinion which he admitted to be in its favour, and he also respected those Colleagues of his in the House who honestly supported a measure of this kind. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had given a large body of statistics, derived from a certain source, and he had also consulted statistics. He (Mr. Eugene Collins) had had no opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman had, of consulting the Resident Magistrates and other officials, who, no doubt, spoke their honest conceptions on the subject. But he had consulted the only public document at his disposal—one which the right hon. Gentleman would not be disposed to question—namely, the Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1883, and it had not borne out the results claimed for the Bill. By this document, he found that there had been a decrease of intemperance of 38 per cent in the exempted towns; whereas, in the rest of the country, there had been a decrease of only 7 per cent. And, comparing 1883 with 1873, he found there had been a decrease of intemperance of 40 per cent in the exempted cities, and an increase of intemperance to the amount of 20 percent in the rest of Ireland. He freely admitted that the amount of intemperance to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was greatly to be deplored; and that the fact that one in 230 in the exempted towns was addicted to intemperance was an evil of a grave character; but the contention of the opponents of the measure was that, with facts before them such as he had cited, they could not shut their eyes to these facts and take up statistics such as those of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. There was an interesting matter—he would not trouble the House long with it—but it was that of the effect of Sunday closing in Wales. Taking the evidence from Wales, they would find not only that Sunday closing had not contributed to the diminution of intemperance, but that it led not only to intemperance, but also to evils of a grave character, which they would deplore still more. At a meeting in Wales, presided over by a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, who was a great advocate of temperance, he found
    1016
    some strong observations, which he should not read to the House, addressed to that temperance meeting by a Roman Catholic clergyman. He stated that the effect of Sunday closing in Wales was this — that it had become the practice, since the passing of the Bill, for women to get in on Saturday night as many barrels of beer as they could smuggle past the policemen. That existed all over the town. The same clergyman gave his own personal experience of those houses. He said—
    "A more terrible sight could not meet the eyes of a clergyman than the scenes which were to be found in such places. The rooms were full to suffocation. There was a cask in the corner of the room, another stored under the stairs, and probably another elsewhere."
    He was unwilling to road the next sentence—[Cries of "Read!"]—though, probably, he ought not to pass it over—
    "They saw young girls sitting on the knees of young men with their arms round their necks, both the girls and the young men smoking."
    This clergyman said that he signed a Petition in favour of Sunday closing in Wales; but experience had so changed his opinion, that nothing would induce him to do so again. Another Catholic clergyman who followed spoke in even stronger terms. His (Mr. Eugene Collins's) contention then was, that experience of this legislation, as well as information derived from the official statistics which he had received, strengthened the case of the opponents of this Bill, Another point which had always struck him was this—The people of Ireland, no doubt, had their faults, like others. No doubt, they had been more addicted to drink—["No, no!"]—more addicted to drink in some parts of the country, than some of them were elsewhere. But would anyone so malign the poor people of Ireland, as to say they were more addicted, in a general way, to the immoderate use of intoxicating liquors, than the people of other countries that most of them were acquainted with? It also occurred to him that there was no compulsion to use these drinks; people were not bound to go into public-houses. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had alluded to three classes mentioned by one of his informants. One class he called the honest, industrious classes; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, they would omit "honest" as being superfluous.

    1017
    As a rule, they were said to be in favour of closing. Then there were the habitual drunkards, who had the need of restrictive legislation, but would always find means for their indulgence. And, finally, there was a third class of weakly people, who gave way too readily to temptation. He would not touch the latter classes, but would deal with the honest, industrious population of Ireland. Whatever men's views might be, politically, morally, or in religion, he would say that, to restrain respectable men who were able to control themselves, who knew what was best for them, who went on a Sunday to a place of recreation with their respectable wives and their families—to deprive these men, by a severe legislative measure, of the opportunity of getting refreshments for their families seemed to him a monstrosity. It seemed almost a cruelty to impose such a limitation upon these poor people. Let hon. Members consider their own case if that were done to themselves; if they felt that refreshments of that kind were necessary and desirable for them, and they were told that they were not to have an opportunity of getting such refreshments; and if that were done by this drastic legislation, what would be the feelings of an independent Member of this House? The licensed victuallers and vintners of Ireland were a numerous body; and, taking them as a body, he believed they were as respectable, straightforward, honourable, well-living, and orderly a class of traders as you would find in any community. He challenged any Member of the House to dispute that statement, which was not a proposition, but an absolute fact. And if that statement could not be disputed, he should like to know why it was they were to be destroyed, in a sense—he would not say destroyed altogether—but damaged most certainly, without meeting them upon as fair and equitable a basis in the matter of compensation, as any other class in the community would be entitled to if they were deprived of a large portion of their business. This point deserved consideration as a matter of justice, equity, and right. On the 5th of March, 1880, he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, speaking in that House, upon a Motion introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), make this statement—
    1018
    "I think we ought to go as far as this:—I am not prepared to say whether there is a case for compensation, or whether there is not a case for compensation, because that must depend upon particulars that are not now before us. We ought not to allow our prejudices with regard to this particular trade, or our sense of the enormous mischiefs associated with its working, to cause us to deviate by one hair's breadth from the principle upon which Parliament has always acted in analogous circumstances—namely, that where a vested interest has been allowed to grow up, the question of compensation should be considered when such vested interests were proposed to be interfered with by Act of Parliament. What I am prepared to say is neither more nor less than this—that the Licensed Victualler has the same right to fair consideration that is enjoyed by persons following every other trade or calling which is interfered with by Act of Parliament, and to whom compensation is awarded owing to such interference. We must not allow—I need not say that Gentlemen on this side of the House will not allow—any political feeling or prejudice to interfere with the rectitude of our judgment, or prevent us from giving the same measure of justice or indulgence to Licensed Victuallers that we should give to any other class in the community."— (3 Hansard, [251] 469.)
    He would conclude with those just and equitable observations. He had submitted, as best he could, the case of the opponents of the Bill. If Government, with its strength, should pass the measure, he hoped they would give consideration to the points he had submitted to the House, on the authority of its Leader, as to the question of compensation to licensed victuallers. If he might venture to give advice, it would be this—that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, after considering all the circumstances, while giving effect to the feelings of a large minority, or perhaps a majority, of the people of Ireland, could be induced to allow the licensed houses throughout the country to remain open for two hours on Sunday, he believed he would meet the case with a considerable amount of equity and justice; and he believed the measure would be accepted in a more friendly spirit than it would be now by a large section of those who were identified with the trade and by a large section of the public.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the hon. Member for Kinsale (Mr. Eugene Collins) had endeavoured to make a good deal of capital out of the state of things in Wales, where Sunday closing had proved a comparative failure; but he (Colonel King-Harman) would remind the hon. Member that the Bill they were

    1019
    discussing now had reference not to Sunday closing in Wales, but to Ireland; and it had been shown, over and over again, that the circumstances of the two countries were totally different. He should like to make a few remarks upon the part he had taken, and which he was about to take, in regard to the question of Sunday closing in Ireland. In 1878, when The O'Conor Don brought in a Bill on this subject, he (Colonel King-Harman) had grave doubts upon the question. He doubted whether the proposed closing of public-houses on the Sunday would be for the welfare of the country or not; and, no doubt, many hon. Members would recollect the part he took in the discussion of the Bill. He doubted the wisdom of the proposal for two reasons. In the first place, he feared that, if the measure became law over Ireland, it would lead the people of that country into the pernicious habit of private drinking. In the second place, he feared it would lead to the multiplication of illicit drinking-houses, commonly known as shebeens. Eventually, however, he yielded to the enormous force of public opinion as shown by the enormous mass of Petitions from every class and creed; but he did so with an amount of hesitation; and, after a good deal of consideration, he moved that the Bill should be tried as a temporary measure for three years. Ultimately, a compromise was effected, and the Bill was passed for five years—a term which they considered would give it a full and fair trial. Well, he was bound to say that the result of the trial, and of the experience which had been gained, was that his doubts had been entirely removed. The evidence produced showed that the working of the measure had been entirely beneficial to the people and the country. There had not been any increase of private drinking, nor had there been an increase of shebeens, and the measure seemed to have done nothing but good. The consequence was, that he believed the immense majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of the measure before the House. He freely acknowledged, and he was glad to be able to do so, that there was a large body of respectable publicans in Ireland; but he had reason to believe that the majority of them were in favour of Sunday closing, provided that it was made universal. In conclusion, he would say that he
    1020
    should vote for the Bill; because, in doing so, he felt that he was voting for a measure which was wholly and entirely for the good of the people, and the prosperity of the country.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he thought it must be very gratifying to the supporters of temperance on this occasion to be supported by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman). He (Mr. Healy) remembered, as a spectator in the House during the Session of 1878, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to be found among the most bitter opponents of this measure, and he would be remembered as sitting up, night after night, and moving, in a most vehement manner, obstructive Motions against Sunday closing. At that time the hon. and gallant Member had grave doubts on the subject it appeared; but now he was the Father Mathew of the County of Dublin coming forward to vote for the Bill, yielding, as he said, to the force of public opinion.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: What I said was that five years' experience had induced me to vote for this Bill.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would, of course, accept the explanation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but he must pardon him (Mr. Healy) for saying that, if lie were to put his construction upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman's change of views, he should put it as change of constituency. Autres' temps, autres maeurs. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman was Member for Sligo he opposed Sunday closing; but as the half-pay officers and the gentry of Rathmines supported Sunday closing, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman became their Representative, he stood forward as a supporter of it. The Irish Members had considerable fault to find with the administration of the Licensing Law as it stood at present. He had pointed that out previously, and he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have done well if he had directed some attention to that aspect of the subject. He had pointed out that it was a notorious fact in Ireland that the Sunday Closing Act was made use of by the police as a means of persecuting licensed victuallers and others who held popular opinions, and that people of an Orange tinge might keep their houses open and sell drink galore. He, himself, was a

    1021
    witness three months ago of a proceeding by a Resident Magistrate, which completely overrode the Licensing Laws, That magistrate directed, on a Sunday, the publicans to keep their houses open; at least, he gave it to be understood that he would not allow his police to prosecute the publicans. Now, what power resided in that gentleman, which enabled him to override in this manner the provisions of an Act of Parliament? Then they had the fact of publicans, who dared to hang out green flags from their houses on National festivals, having their licences opposed by the police; and others, who closed their doors and hung out crape on the occasion of Mr. Parnell's arrest, treated in a similar fashion. Look, then, at the treatment of his hon. Friends (Messrs. Harrington and O'Brien) in Bandon and Charleville. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) never tasted drink of any kind from his childhood, so that it would not be supposed that he would be a very great opponent of temperance; but when he and his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) were being entertained at Charleville and Bandon after a meeting the police broke in and took the names of those present, and they were fined. What did the Chief Secretary for Ireland do in that case? Did he remit the fines as he did in other cases? Not at all. Now, the Irish Members were not prepared to place themselves further at the mercy of every bumptious sub-constable, and every officious Resident Magistrate and District Inspector. Look, then, at the way the Government managed their business. They brought forward the Bill that day, knowing well it could not pass. Now, the Irish Members urged the Government to bring forward the non-contentious measures, and try and get them passed. There was the land purchase scheme so much desired. There was the Education Bill, to which, beyond some small details, there would be no general objection, and there was the Endowed Schools Bill, to remedy rankling grievances like that at Swords and elsewhere. What was the answer of the Government to these appeals? No; you first must smallow the Sunday Closing Bill. Was that the way Scotch Business was treated? Would the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate make such an an-
    1022
    swer to the Scotch Members if there was any Bill which they desired to have pressed forward in preference to another? Not at all. But they, the Irish Members, were to have the Bill pressed, whether they liked it or not, at the dictation of a few supporters of it. Now, he begged to tell the Government that, if they desired to pass Irish measures, they must consult the wishes, the feelings, and the opinions of the Irish Parliamentary Party. Why was Mr. T. W. Russell to be consulted, and the Irish Members not? Were measures of that sort to be settled in the Lobby and not in the House itself? He believed himself there was a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of Sunday closing in rural districts. So when they were asked to come down and support temperance, he said "Yes," and he was in favour of the principle of the Bill. He had voted for Local Option, and would do so again. But he objected, and the Irish Members objected, to the manner in which the Government proposed to deal with this and other questions. He was not prepared to see a measure pass which he believed was not honestly administered. The Government said—"You will have to pass this Bill, or we will not give you anything else." Well, they would see whether this Bill would pass. The question of Sunday closing generally was not at issue. That was secured by the existing Bill. There was great difference of opinion in the large towns, and in view of that he regarded the pressing forward of this Bill to-day as sheer waste of time. The Chief Secretary for Ireland quoted a remarkable set of figures in regard to Scotch towns of arrests for drunkenness. He (Mr. Healy) should like to say a few words in regard to these arrests. The Police Acts in Ireland were quite different from those of Scotland. In Scotland, and in England also, if people were seen going home, even if they could not stand perpendicular, the police left them to go. But in Ireland, if a man could not maintain his perpendicular, he was instantly taken and lodged in gaol. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated that the results of statistics, in regard to Scotch towns of over 80,000 inhabitants, showed the number of arrests on Sunday for drunkenness was very much less than on other days of the week, and added that this was a great argument

    1023
    in favour of Sunday closing. He (Mr. Healy) did not think it was conclusive; because, if a Scotch workman spent all his wages on Saturday, he would have nothing to spend on drink on Sunday. Then, again, as to the persons administering the Bill. He believed that if they wished to have temperance laws successful in Ireland, they should have a totally different class to administer it. It now lay with the police, who favoured certain individuals, and let others off; and even when they came to the police court the magistrates, as a rule, dealt with two publicans of different politics in totally different ways. They would let off with a fine publicans who were of the Government or Tory side of politics, and would not endorse their licences, while they took care to go to the extent of endorsing the licence of anyone convicted on the other side. He wished to know whether the Bill would be administered, like the existing Sunday Closing Law, by partizan magistrates, who were the curse of the country, and who did not do their duty impartially any more than the police. When they had in a town 20 or 30 Orange magistrates, and the publicans belonging largely to the popular Party, they must expect the magistrates to punish more heavily the men belonging to the popular Party than they did the others. In fact, he was not satisfied with the machinery, and he thought it was a question which might well be taken into further consideration. He would suggest that only two Resident Magistrates should have power of dealing with licensing cases and the jurisdiction. The Resident Magistrates, bad as they were, had, at all events, some official responsibility; and, for his part, he would entirely abolish the jurisdiction of the ordinary Orange Justices in such cases. If the licensing question was to be dealt with at all, it would be far better that it was to be dealt with by a responsible Government official than by distrusted partizans. A Castle official, even if he were a Clifford Lloyd or a Captain Plunkett, would be preferable in such cases to the ordinary magistrates of Ireland. Therefore, if the Bill was passed, the question of the endorsement of licences ought not to be left to ordinary Petty Sessions Justices. He objected to that or any other Bill being left to the adminis-
    1024
    tration of the ordinary Orange magistrates. They had groaned too long already under the influence of "Justices' justice" in Ireland. Nationalist publicans might expect something like decency from the responsible Resident Magistracy, but none from the ordinary Justices of the country. He knew a magistrate in the county of Cork who would give a decision for a glass of whisky. [Cries of "Name!"] If he were to name anyone, he supposed it would be said he was attacking an absent man; that he was exposing that person to intimidation; and that he was misusing the Privileges of the House in a manner he should not do. But he might say that, at Bantry, lately, in opposition to the wish of the parish priest, the magistrates trooped into the town, at the licensing sessions, at the bidding of one man, and. contrary to the opinion of the local Catholic clergymen and of all the respectable inhabitants, granted a publican's licence to be set up opposite the chapel door. He denied, further, that the constables in the City of Dublin administered the law firmly and impartially. It was notorious that those who were in high quarters in Dublin, presiding over the police, accepted bribes in many cases, in order to have the law evaded. It was notorious that ilicit drinking was winked at by means of bribery by many of the Police Inspectors of Dublin, and he did not believe those men would administer the law fairly. Unfortunately, in many other cities of the country the police were open to temptations of that character. Therefore, he should like to know how the Government proposed to deal with this question. He was strongly of opinion that a measure such as this should be tentative, and should not be made permanent without further inquiry. He was in favour of its continuance in the country places; but, as regarded the five exempted towns, he thought there was much to be said against the proposal, and that there ought to be further inquiry. He believed the Government was not serious in attempting to pass the present Bill. The fact was, they had made certain pledges with the temperance people of Ireland, and had put this Bill down for a Morning Sitting, at which there was no chance of passing it, so that they might be able to say—"We have kept our

    1025
    promise, and washed our hands of you, and the Bill must now drop." Instead of doing that, the Government should have considered the Irish legislation as a whole. Before he sat down, he could not help alluding to a statement of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), from which it might be inferred that drinking was greater in Ireland than in England and Scotland. Statistics were opposed to that view, and he believed the proportion was smaller. He protested against the Bill, which had been put down only to redeem a pledge given to Members friendly to the Government, while they had not pressed forward the Bill dealing with the purchase of land, or the Education Bill.
    MR. EWARTsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) in the "cursory" remarks with which he had occupied their attention. The last half-hour and more he had inveighed against the Government for their management of the Business of the House; against the magistrates of Ireland for their alleged unfair and corrupt administration of the law; and he was especially heavy upon the Constabulary for partiality and misconduct. There appeared to be little in Ireland that pleased the hon. Member; but he (Mr. Ewart) felt that there was very little difference of opinion, that those classes did not come up to the standard of the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, his speech did not touch the merits of the Bill. It was true he admitted that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of the Bill. That remark seemed to have been the only one pertinent to the subject in the hon. Member's speech. The speech was valuable in so far as it enabled time to be spent till the hand of the clock stood at 7. [Mr. HEALY: And so is your own.] Well, he would be as brief as possible. He would not imitate the hon. Member for Monaghan, but would condense his remarks into the smallest possible space, and he would first say, that he regretted very much that domestic anxiety caused the absence of his Colleague (Mr. Corry), and that the Bill would not have the advantage in debate of one who, from the time this question was first raised, had been a hearty and active supporter of it. But, really, the time for lengthened argument required in discussing the necessity for it in Ireland had passed.
    1026
    It was admitted, on all hands, that the monster evil of their time was intemperance, which brought in its train nearly all the pauperism and destitution of the country, and much of the disease, immorality, and vice that unhappily prevailed. In the opinion of the Judges, the clergy, and the physicians—and they could all confirm it by their own experience—intemperance filled their workhouses, their lunatic asylums, and their prisons. It made more widows and orphans than war and pestilence. It burdened the rates; and, in that way, oppressed all classes, including especially the industrious, struggling, worthy poor. As regarded Ireland, there was almost as much money spent in drink as would pay the rental of the land; and if it were possible at once to stop this expenditure, their country might well hope to prosper. Drink not only wasted the money, but unfitted the man for active, intelligent industry. Instead of draining and improving his land, the Irish farmer too often spent his time at the fair, or the market, needlessly; or at the Sessions, or at the "Bank," or in indolence; and he failed to perform his duty to his family, and brought discredit on his country. Well, the experience of the last five or six years in Ireland had shown—and he would not argue the question, or go into statistics about it, for it could not be denied—that there had been a great benefit to the country generally from, the existing law. It was a great point gained to have the temptation of the open public-house removed one day in seven. He would admit that they could not make men sober by Act of Parliament; but, by such Acts of Parliament as this, they could do something to bring about a better state of things; and, in doing that, they would be correcting another great evil—that of the secularization and desecration of the sacred day — and they would be aiding the ministers of religion in their holy work. Then, he would like to know why, of all men, publicans should be allowed the privilege of trading on Sundays, while those who supplied needful wants, such as butchers, grocers, and others, were prohibited, and properly so, from following theirs? He was happy to believe that a considerable number of publicans themselves who had seven-day licences would rejoice to have six-day licences all over the trade. In passing

    1027
    the Bill they would elevate the trade of the publican to a higher level. As far as the town he represented was concerned, there was a wonderful unanimity. All classes of men—and women too, for they and their children were the greatest sufferers—all ranks and creeds, all parties, were, for once, united in supporting the measure; and, instead of there being the disorder in the town which was once predicted, if such a Bill as this should be passed, the news which he hoped would era long reach them was that, notwithstanding the opposition of the hon. Member for Monaghan, the Bill had received the Royal Assent, which would be received with rejoicing there, on account of Belfast being included in the Act.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am one of those who are most anxious to see progress made with this Bill, and I have risen, principally, in consequence of one or two remarks which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). Speaking in a sort of halfhearted opposition to the Bill, my hon. Friend alluded to the action of the Irish Parliamentary Party with regard to it. Now, the Irish Parliamentary Party, as far as I know, are, as a Party, taking no action at all with reference to this Bill. Indeed, as a matter of fact, I believe the truth to be that a very considerable majority of the Members of the Irish Parliamentary Party are in favour of the principles of the Bill. What was the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan himself? Certainly it was not a speech in opposition to the principles of the Bill. He acknowledges that the Bill, as far as it relates to the country generally, has the approval of the majority of the people; and, as far as it relates to the five large towns, he does not venture to express an opinion at all. I sympathize very largely with many of the remarks of the hon. Member with reference to the administration of the Bill by some of the policemen in the country districts of Ireland; but I contend that that forms no reason why the passage of the measure should be delayed. I have a very strong opinion as to the interference of the police in these matters, and as to the granting of licences by magistrates. I should like to see the whole question of licences placed on an entirely different basis—the power of granting or
    1028
    withholding licences taken away altogether from the magistrates, and vested in some way in representatives elected by the people. At the same time, I do not think that the remarks of my hon. Friend ought to induce the House to delay the progress of the Bill. It is not often my fortune to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman); but, certainly, he made one remark to-day with which I do agree, when he said he believed that a large proportion of the publicans of Ireland were in favour of the principles of this Bill. I represent a constituency in which the publican vote is about one-third of the whole, yet, when I was elected, I was an avowed supporter of the principles of Sunday Closing; and I have never, since I have been a Member, received any representations on the subject from my constituents, except those of cordial approval of the course I have always taken upon measures of this character. My hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan himself recently represented a borough in which the publicans were a strong power, but which has always been true to the principles of Sunday Closing. I rose merely to make it clear that this is not a question on which the Irish Parliamentary Party are taking united action, and that it is one in which, individually, a large majority are in favour of the proposals now before the House.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he thought it right to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had been misunderstood. It was only due to his hon. Friend to explain that the question of that Bill was considered by the Irish Parliamentary Party, and they passed a resolution, condemning the manner in which the Bill had been introduced, and the hon. Member for Monaghan only gave expression to that resolution, which was passed when the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. John Redmond) was absent from the country. He (Mr. Harrington) had always been a temperance man; but, from his knowledge of the country, he did not believe they had materially advanced the cause of temperance by the Sunday Closing Act. Though the number of arrests might not be so large, the difference in cases of drunkenness was not very material, because a great deal of drunkenness was carried on, when they

    1029
    were not under the eyes of the police. He was quite satisfied that the hon. Member for Monaghan had correctly described the state of things, when he said that a certain class were favoured by the local police—he would not say by the local magistrates—and when a retired policeman obtained a publican's licence, he might keep open from Sunday morning until late on Sunday night, without anyone interfering with him. One reason why he could not vote in favour of the Bill was that it was enormously increasing another class of crime, quite as dangerous to the morality of the country as drunkenness. There had been an enormous increase in the number of cases of false-swearing. No one could attend a Petty Sessions Court, and hear there cases against publicans, without being made aware that the amount of false-swearing was simply alarming. He might appeal to magistrates sitting in the Northern parts of Ireland, whether the law, which gave the publican the right to take the oath in his defence, had not enormously increased the amount of perjury? He had himself attended cases in Petty Sessions, where two or three policemen had distinctly sworn to a breach of the licence, and the publican, his wife, and other people had sworn to what was totally opposite to their statement. Therefore, he did not think the Chief Secretary for Ireland was justified in resting his whole case for the Bill on the number of arrests for drunkenness. There was another point in the administration of the Act which he objected to—that was the portion of it which allowed certain houses to keep open as long as they liked to sell drink, such as hotels and clubs, whilst others were forced to close. In addition to this, in any garrison town in Ireland, any young man who desired to obtain drink had simply but to walk across the road to the nearest barrack, make the acquaintance of a soldier, and he could spend the entire day in the canteen, and with his friends, if there were 100 of them, get as drunk as he liked. Whilst they had not a strictly fair and impartial administration of the law, they could not expect that men who took up these questions, and who wished success to the cause of temperance, would be very warm advocates for another partial and patched-up measure. As the hon. Member for the City of Dublin
    1030
    (Mr. M. Brooks) had pointed out, the closing of public-houses in that City on Sunday would be the means of enormously increasing the number of shebeen-houses; and if the officials of Dublin were consulted, they would undoubtedly testify to the fact that one of the greatest evils in the City was these shebeen houses, as they were most repulsive in other respects besides the illicit selling of liquors which took place in them. He maintained that any enormous increase in those houses would be fraught with the greatest danger to the morals of the City; because, in sending young men to them in search of drink, they would be sending them to places where they would learn evils infinitely more hurtful. He should always give his support on the side of temperance, when he believed that a measure with that object would be fairly and impartially administered; but he certainly was not a warm supporter, if he could be a supporter at all, of the measure introduced by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because of the manner of its introduction, and the undue prominence which had been given to it, and because, also, it was very little demanded by the people of Ireland. For himself, he believed that the public opinion of the country was utterly indifferent to the measure. They did not believe, in the first plane, that it would be administered impartially; and they did not believe it would achieve that which was promised of it; and, still further, they did not believe that the stigma of intemperance, which some hon. Members had endeavoured to fasten on the people of Ireland, could be justified.
    MR. O'BRIENsaid, he wished to explain why he should vote against the Bill. He scarcely liked to do so; but there was evidently a wide difference of opinion amongst those with whom he generally acted with regard to it. It was his misfortune to differ with the principle of the Bill, and also with the manner in which it was likely to be administered. He objected to the way it would be administered, for reasons which had been very fully set forth in the course of the debate, as the one great effect of it would be to divide the publicans into two classes — policemen's friends and policemen's enemies—and would result in this, that all the attention of the police would be devoted to

    1031
    watching the Nationalist publican, while those publicans who in any way had commended themselves to the favour of the police would be allowed by them to carry on any amount of Sunday trading without interference. After the remarks of the hon. Members for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), he did not think it necessary to enter into the controversy raised by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to whether the Sunday Closing Bill had decreased intemperance. He believed that there was much, more Sunday tippling going on now than ever there was, and that it was more demoralizing in its effects than when carried on openly. The people, no doubt, kept out of the way of the police; but they must not suppose that there had been a decrease in Sunday drinking, because there had been no obtrusive Sunday drinking and fewer arrests for drunkenness. But what he maintained was this, that the advantage, such as it might be, was not sufficient to counterbalance the loss of self-respect among the people who regarded this measure as a kind of Coercion Act imposed on them, not by their own will, but by the propaganda of a small set of well-intentioned Sabbatarian foreigners who had settled down in Dublin, no doubt joined—as they saw they had been—by some Irish Members for whose opinions he had the highest respect. The people in some parts had debarred themselves voluntarily in this particular; and the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. John Redmond) had spoken of the feeling in favour of this Bill in his constituency; but throughout County Wexford there was, no doubt, a very strong feeling in favour of Sunday closing; but this had existed for years before Sunday closing was ever heard of. It was so carried out in the diocese of Ferns, and in the archdiocese of Cashel, and that by the simple force of the religious feeling; and he ventured to say that it was carried out much more efficiently there now than it would be carried out under the sanction of an English Act of Parliament to enforce it. He maintained that this legislation was not demanded by any considerable section of the Irish people. If it were required by them, they would take a very easy and summary mode of making their feeling on the matter felt. On the contrary, he believed that there was a very
    1032
    strong feeling of resentment amongst the Irish people against this sect of Puritans, who wished to impose their own opinions forcibly on the Irish people, and who really desired to treat the Irish people as though they were dipsomaniacs, and required to be put under restraint. They objected very much to these men coming to the House in the name of Ireland, and asking the House to subject them to a law which the House dare not subject England to, and to a law to which the Members of the House themselves did not, so far as he could judge, by any means subject themselves. It was not by legislation of this kind that they could hope to find very much improvement in the moral condition of the Irish people. He believed that instead of drunkenness pausing pauperism, as the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ewart) seemed to imagine, it was to a very large extent that poverty and misery were the cause of drunkenness. The lives of the Irish people were sufficiently joyless already; arid he thought that the Legislators of that House would be far better employed in doing something which would substantially improve the condition of the Irish people than by assisting in debarring them of one of the few enjoyments they had—an enjoyment which he maintained was partaken of by the great bulk of the people in the most perfect moderation. In every class there were people who ought to be treated by exceptional legislation; but the true remedy was to educate the people better than they were now educated, and to improve thereby their means of enjoyment. Unfortunately, there was an utter absence of anything like incentives to lives of sobriety; and, until some improvement was made in the material condition of the people, legislation of this kind would be perfectly worthless, and would be resented by the Irish people. The simple result of this measure would be to increase the attraction to drink by driving people into secret places, and thus to widen the gulf, which was already sufficiently wide, between the law and the sympathies of the Irish people.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he held the view largely shared by a large number of Members from Ireland, and it was this, that while thoroughly agreeing with the principles of the

    1033
    measure, he was firmly convinced that the administration of the measure in certain districts in Ireland had been most flagrant, and such as not to increase the confidence of the people in the impartiality of the Magistracy, or the Police. He would mention the case of a most respectable publican in the town he had the honour to represent, named Scallan. On the pretence of seeing if the Act was carried out, he noticed that the police forced their way into the house, and behaved in a manner which occasioned the family much annoyance. The police and the people were not on good terms in Ireland, and the enmity was likely, whilst such legislation had to be administered, to continue for a very long time. He did not think that, under the circumstances, it would be advisable to place further powers in their hands, which would enable them to interfere further than they already did with the interests and the liberties of the people. At the same time, as their Representative, he felt it his duty to support this measure, because his constituency was thoroughly in favour of it. He could not help remarking how ready the Government were to introduce a measure of this kind, when, only the other day, they offered the most strenuous opposition to an important Bill relating to the housing of the labourers in Ireland introduced from those Benches; and he found it extremely difficult to explain the action of the Government in giving prominence to this measure, and rejecting the other altogether. Personally, he did not like this Bill, or, indeed, any measure which restricted the liberty of the subject, and he believed that the great effect of it would be to increase drunkenness and the illicit sale of liquor. When in Portland City, in the State of Maine, having heard a great deal about the Maine Liquor Laws, and the freedom of the place from public-houses, he made inquiries and found that, although there were no ostensible places for the sale of liquor, there were over 80 places where liquor to any extent could be obtained; and, as a matter of fact, in that model city there was more liquor consumed and more drunkenness than in any other city of the same proportions in America. The tendency of this kind of legislation seemed to be to increase the desire of people for drink, no doubt, in accordance with what seemed to be
    1034
    one of the laws of nature prevailing with most people—to try and get the things that were denied them. They might call it obstinacy, if they liked; but people who, in the usual course would not care much about drink on Sunday, would, when prohibited by a British Act of Parliament, do all in their power to get it. He was firmly convinced that the publicans of Ireland opposed this measure in the most honest and straightforward manner, and that no opposition was given to it by them for interested motives. The publicans were as honest and as deserving a class as was to be found in the whole country. There were no people who more loyally supported the public institutions than publicans; and those in Ireland supported their country and religion, and had proved themselves over and over again in the various cities and boroughs of Ireland most capable citizens. He was perfectly convinced that their opposition to it was not because it might have the effect of taking a small sum of money out of their pockets, but that it was due to the fact that their experience had told them that it was not wise to interfere with the liberties of the people. He pitied the unfortunate men in Ireland who, if this Bill became law, required some stimulant on Sunday and were unable to get it. It was almost impossible for any man in that House to conceive the same experience; and if it was proposed to pass such a law with the view of making it impossible for hon. Members of that House to get stimulants on a Sunday, very few indeed would think of voting for such a measure. Much as he disliked the Bill itself, he was obliged to support it for the reasons he had given.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not disposed to see the Bill talked out, because he had always voted for a Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland; and he thought he had also voted in favour of Sunday Closing Bills for England. He admitted, however, that he did not like the present measure; and if it had not been for the fact that his constituents were strongly in favour of it, he was not perfectly certain how he would vote on the present occasion. His constituents had no particular interest one way or another in the measure now before the House. Before the Sunday Closing Act was passed, the people of the county of

    1035
    Cavan, irrespective of religion or politics, had agreed to put into operation, as far as they were concerned, Sunday closing. They thought that what was good for them was good for their neighbours; but he questioned very much whether they would take this view, if they knew that the effect of the Bill would be to increase secret drinking. In his own case, he knew that it would not be good for him to take six glasses of punch; it would be quite the reverse. But he admitted that "half-a-glass" would do him good. But there were others who could do with the six glasses; and he had known those who said that no material benefit was to be derived from, so small a quantity as half-a-glass of whisky, which they alleged would not warm the bottom of the tumbler. His constituents lived in a purely rural district, in which there were no large towns, and they had no knowledge of the wants of the residents in. large towns; but their personal observation induced them to believe that the present Sunday Closing Bill was required for populous places. They had no knowledge of what the bonâ fide traveller was; and, consequently, they saw no reason why all public-houses in Ireland should not be closed on a Sunday. He remembered being in Edinburgh on a Sunday, when the Forbes-Mackenzie Act was in operation, and there he saw more drunkenness than he had ever seen. The result of Sunday closing in large towns was that shebeens were established; and, from his own observation, in places where Sunday closing was in force, he had seen more young men staggering home drunk on Sunday, when strong drinks were supposed not to be sold, than on any of the other days when the drink could be obtained in any quantity. No doubt, that was due to the villanous stuff which was supplied at the secret drinking places. If the drink was obtained in the legitimate way, no evil consequences followed; and he could not help thinking that the advocates of teetotalism who wished to pass these very stringent laws were carrying their wishes in restraint of the liberty of the subject too far. Let them, look who these teetotallers were. They could tell such hon. Members by the colour of their faces; and, by the way, he observed that those teetotal Members who were supporters of this Bill had very little colour. If a medi-
    1036
    cal man was called in to examine them, one of the first things he would prescribe for them would be a limited amount of some stimulant which, he would tell them, would very much benefit their health. In the same way, if he (Mr. Biggar) were permitted to prescribe for these Gentlemen, he would suggest a little Irish whisky. His constituents were in favour of the Bill; and, whether they were right or wrong, he was disposed to vote in favour of their opinions.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should vote for the Bill, because he believed the people of Ireland wanted it. A similar Bill had been very successful in Scotland, and had given great satisfaction to everyone, except in the matter of the bonâ fide traveller, who, he believed, was a very drunken party indeed. It seemed to him that if they should ever make a Sunday Closing Bill successful, they must abolish the bonâ fide traveller altogether.
    SIR, JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Sir George Campbell) had been very unfortunate in his reference to Scotland in stating his support to the Bill. In the first place, he had occupied some minutes of the time of the House; and, in the next, he had made a reference to the presumed success of the legislation for Scotland which was altogether unfounded in fact. His very successful legislation on temperance lines in Scotland, as compared with the hitherto one-sided legislation in Ireland on the same lines, had eventuated in this—that every man, woman, and child in Scotland, from the navvy working on the railway to the infant at the breast, drank per annum a gallon more of whisky than sufficed for each head of the population of Ireland. Now, if that was a specimen of the success attending on the temperance legislation for Scotland, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) hoped no such success would attend such professed temperance legislation for Ireland. Notwithstanding the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, and the other so-called Temperance Acts, and the teachings of such teetotal luminaries from that land as sat in that House, Scotchmen continued to be, with scarcely an exception, one of the most drunken people in Europe. They did not drink as much, he admitted, as some other people of

    1037
    the Anglo-Saxon race. Statistics proved that the most alcohol in the year—per head of the population—was consumed in England and Wales; so he could fearlessly say that, in both these countries and in Scotland, more intoxicating drink was consumed in proportion to the population than was consumed in Ireland. In England, it averaged about seven gallons per head per annum; in Scotland, about five gallons; and, in Ireland, it was equivalent to about three and a-half gallons per head, converting the various liquors consumed into the equivalent of proof spirits. And yet, on the presumptive success of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, they were to have similar legislation commended to them in Ireland. He was not an opponent of temperance principles. He practised them in his own person, and recommended them to his friends; but he objected very much to this self-glorification of Scotland, which was held up to them as though it should be a model to Ireland. The Forbes-Mackenzie Act might have had some success in moderating, or lessening in some degree, the drunkenness which prevailed, or would prevail if no such Bill had been passed for Scotland; but it had not brought the consumption of alcohol down to anything like the proportions which prevailed in Ireland. Hon. Members who supported the Bill should bear in mind that no such measure had been ever introduced into England; and, notwithstanding the supposed success of the Scotch measure, the people there still drank every year a gallon of whisky more per head than they did in Ireland. He regarded it as most unfortunate that the other Government Bill for Ireland should have been postponed in order that this measure should be proceeded with. Ireland stood in a different position in this matter to Scotland and England. He would be very glad, indeed, if in Ireland the poorer classes of the people drank less whisky; because, of every Is. worth of whisky which Irishmen drank, nearly 10 d. dropped into the till of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Irishmen paid lately in one year £3,500,000 for the same quantity of whisky as they paid £950,000 for in 1851. It was not so bad in former years. There was a time when it was only 3d. or 4d. tax on the 1s. expenditure; but while the
    1038
    duty on beer, the common beverage of the English people, measured by its strength in proof spirits, had been reduced from 12 s. 6d. to less than 2s., per gallon, that on whisky, the common beverage of the Irish nation, had been largely increased—namely, from 2s. 8d. to 10 s. He did not wish the duty on whisky to be reduced; but he desired that the additional money derived from that duty in Ireland should be applied to Irish purposes. [Cries of "Question! "] He could tell those who interrupted him, that the Bill would not be forwarded by. those means. He considered that the Bill was premature; in itself it might be a good Bill; but it ought to be left to the decision of the future Representatives of the enlarged constituencies in Ireland, as they would represent the classes of the people who would be most affected by it. He did not want to stand in the way of a Division, though he did not mean to take part in it himself; but he protested against a Bill of such a kind being forced through the House in such a way, when there were many far more pressing Irish subjects demanding attention, and notably that with reference to labourers' cottages.
    MR. HICKSsaid, that the question was in this position—that, for the great part of Ireland, there was a Sunday Closing Act, which had expired, and had been renewed, and would again expire, unless the ordinary course of renewing it was followed. As, no doubt, it would be perfectly independent of the Bill, Sunday closing in Ireland, therefore, was already provided for, and would continue. There appeared to him to be two reasons why the Bill should not be read a second time. One was, that, in principle, it was virtually in operation already in Ireland; and the other, that its effects had not been fairly and truly tested. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) said that the Bill worked well in that town; but there the people were in favour of it, and it was, in fact, in operation before the Bill was agitated at all. The hon. Member below him (Mr. Harrington) said there was less obtrusive drinking in Ireland, but more secret drinking in private houses, and that statement had been endorsed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). Then, with regard to Wales, the evidence they had before them from the public

    1039
    meetings held in that country, was to the effect that the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill had failed. These circumstances ought to show the House that the subject was one that was open to a great deal of controversy; and that being so, it seemed to him reasonable that, seeing they had already an Act in operation from year to year, applying to all Ireland, excepting the five large towns, the promoters of the Bill should be content with that, until they had an opportunity of referring the subject to the consideration of the Irish people.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few minutes; but for a great many years I have taken an interest in this Bill; in fact, from the time that I began to be convinced, now 12 or 14 years ago, that the feeling of the people of Ireland was very strongly in its favour. I do not believe that that feeling has weakened since then; and, as far as I can understand the question, from the views of the Representatives of the country, on the vote on this subject, it will again appear, as it appeared on a former occasion, that a very large majority of the Irish people desire the passing of the Bill. The experience which has been gained from the experimental working of the Act already in operation, shows that the feeling in Ireland is ripe; and after that experience, extending over several years, it is not unnatural that an attempt should now be made to bring about the uniform operation of the law in all parts of Ireland. What I do think is reasonable is, that, after the whole of this Morning's Sitting has been spent in the debate, and after the subject has been as thoroughly thrashed out as any subject that comes before us, the suporters of the Bill should expect that on. Gentlemen opposed to the Bill should allow a Division to be taken on the second reading. They are, of course, entitled to speak on the subject. I do not say that, because the Bill was de-dated on former occasions, they are not entitled to the fullest opportunity of being heard; but the second reading of the Bill is very far indeed from the passing of the Bill. Both in Committee, and other stages, they will have opportunities of raising their objections to both the principle and the details of the Bill. What I do think is, that it is
    1040
    not fair to the people of Ireland—and it would be most unfair of all to the people of Ireland on the part of any of those who believe themselves to be especially the Representatives of the people of Ireland—if the votes of the House are not allowed to be given on, the second reading. Let us see what the feeling of Ireland is, as decided by the votes of its Representatives. That, I think, will be felt to be a fair appeal. After the debate that has taken place to-day, I cannot but hope that Gentlemen will reserve themselves for the opportunity they will have of renewing their discussion upon this Bill at a future stage. I will not myself in any way prolong the discussion, but content myself with making this appeal. I hope that those opposed to the Bill will have such moderation and equity in their manner of proceeding, as to allow us to pass to a Division on the Motion to read the Bill a second time, so as to test the sense of Parliament at large, and particularly of Irish Representatives, as expressing the sentiments of Ireland on this matter; because this, at any rate, is a subject on which it is right that Irish ideas should be heard.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he would admit that there was a majority of the people in favour of the Sunday Closing Bill; but everyone who knew anything of Ireland, knew also that there was a strong minority opposed to it. The right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the Government professed to have great regard for the opinions of the Representatives of Ireland on questions affecting Ireland, and had wished that the sense of the majority among them, should be permitted to prevail; but the fact was, that Irish Members constantly found themselves overwhelmingly outvoted by English Members on Irish subjects. There had been other measures before the House, in the course of this Session, upon which the opinion of the Irish Members was united, and which no Irish Representative opposed, yet the followers of the right hon. Gentleman came in and voted against those Bills and rejected them. He thought it a strange thing on the part of the Government that they should attempt to spring on the House a Bill of that kind, at a time when most of its opponents were absent. There were several hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituen-

    1041
    cies known to be bitterly opposed to the Bill, who were absent. Of the opponents he referred to, the hon. Member for Dublin City (Mr. M. Brooks) was the only one who happened to be present. The hon. Members for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne), Waterford (Mr. Leamy), and Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) were absent. Some of them were in the House a few days ago; but they had not the slightest idea that the Bill would be brought on that day. He did not deny that, in the abstract, public opinion was in favour of the principle of the Bill; but he could not support it, because the licensing legislation had been used for corrupt purposes, and for the persecution of people who held popular views in the country. He quite agreed in the statement that the Government had thrown away a day which might have been devoted to the consideration of other measures upon which the Irish Members were united.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the Prime Minister had come down to the House, at the end of the debate, to give the weight of his authority to an appeal to allow a Division to be taken; but it was his (Mr. Warton's) duty to complain, in answer to that appeal, that the Government made it a practice to put down an immense number of Orders of the Day—sometimes 20 or 30—and thus gave themselves the power, according to what they might select, to take the second reading of any measure they pleased on the following day. That was what had been done in the present case. He did not know whether the Government were aware of it or not; but some of the prominent opponents of the Bill, representing Irish constituencies, whose opinions the right hon. Gentleman professed to be very desirous of eliciting, were absent from the House, and had no idea that the Bill was going to be taken that day. As regarded the Bill under consideration, he thought the Act of 1878 should be regarded in its true light as a compromise. In this world we could not get all we wanted, and we ought to be content with what we could get. A contrast had been drawn, in the course of the debate, between drinking in a public-house and drinking in a private house. But that was a mistake. The true comparison was between drinking in a licensed house, and drinking in an unlicensed one, or shebeen, as it was
    1042
    called in Ireland. Since 1878 those shebeens had largely increased in number.
    It being ten minutes before seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this day.
    The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes to Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Legitimacy Declaration Act (1858) Amendment * (134); Fisheries (Oyster, Crab, and Lobster) Act (1877) Amendment* (135); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) * (136); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (New Streets in the City of Dublin, &c.)* (137); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 2) (Unions of Clonmel and others)* (138); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 5) (Unions of Cashel, and others) * (139); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Labourers Act) (No. 6) (Unions of Delvin, and others) * (140); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (141); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 12) (Parishes of Barnwood, and others) * (142); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 13) (City of Oxford, and others) * (143); Tramways (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) (Clogher Valley Tramway)* (144).
Third Reading—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders * (70); Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *; Bankruptcy Frauds and Disabilities (Scotland)* (101); Metropolitan Police* (118); Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Amendment * (125); Great Seal* (83), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—HOUSE OF LORDS—EFFIENCY OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I rise to ask your indulgence while I lay before you the reasons which induced me to place the Motion on the Paper which stands in my name. That Motion is—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of this House."
  In putting this Motion on the Paper, I have been desirous of bringing forward not merely an academical discussion, but a practical proposition. I am quite aware that the Motion itself and the form of the Motion are unusual; but I can hardly think that there is anything to be said against an unusual Motion, in the days in which we live, when nothing is sure to happen but the unexpected. But I will go a little further, and say that not merely is this Motion unusual, but it is unprecedented; and it is on that very ground that I would urge your Lordships to accept it to-night. The House of Lords has never, so far as I know, in the whole of its history, appointed a Committee to inquire into its own general condition. It has at times appointed Committees to inquire into branches of the subject. It has appointed Committees to inquire into its own judicial jurisdiction, into the state of the Representative Peerage of Ireland and Scotland, into the system of Joint Committees, and into various branches of this very large subject. But I am not aware that at any time it has ever thought it necessary to appoint a Committee to inquire into its own condition as a whole. The House of Lords has existed, I think, about six centuries. I do not suppose that any Institution has existed so long as that without reform. Of course, it may be said that that is due to its inherent and original perfection; but I do not believe that there is any Institution that can afford to remain motionless, and seal itself against the varying influences of time. Are there any Institutions of that antiquity which have been able to remain without amendment or modification? What Institutions are they? Is it Monarchy? Is it the Church? Is it the House of Commons? Is it the Municipalities of this country? Every one of
  938
  those Institutions has undergone frequent and large reconstruction in the course of the six centuries to which I have alluded. Is it something in the form of this House itself that makes it an exception? Why, this House has undergone considerable modification. Who were the Peers who originally composed it? They were mainly Ecclesiastics, with a minority of the great feudal vassals of the Crown. Then came a change, when this House lost its predominance over the other House. Then they lost their feudal power; then they lost their mitred abbots, and ceased to be an Ecclesiastical Assembly, and became mainly a temporal Assembly; then their existence was suspended under Cromwell; then they admitted Parliamentary Representatives from Scotland; then they admitted Life Representatives from Ireland; as well as—if I may so call them—rotatory Ecclesiastical Representatives from Ireland — Ecclesiastics who came in turn from that country to represent the Church in this House; and then came, in my opinion, the greatest change of all, when the House was swamped under George III. and Mr. Pitt. The extent of that great revolution, is easily shown by the bare figures I am about to quote. At the Accession of George III. there were 174 Peers altogether, of whom 13 were minors, and 12 Roman Catholics, leaving 149 sitting Peers. George III. in the course of his long reign created 388 Peers, of which number Mr. Pitt was responsible for 140. These figures show how completely changed this House was by these creations; but there is a very curious proof, beyond these figures, of the change which it has undergone. At the first reading of the first Reform Bill in this House, of the Peers who were created before 1790, 104 supported the Bill, and only 4 voted against it, and the Bill was thrown out mainly by the Peers created by Mr. Pitt. The next change was that the House of Lords, which was a great Assembly of borough-owners, lost its direct representation in the House of Commons on the passing of the first Reform Bill. The next change was in the method of voting, when they suspended the use of proxies in 1868. They lost their Irish Ecclesiastical Representatives in 1869; they suspended their bankrupt Members in 1871; and last, and not least,

  939
  they admitted three judicial Life Peers in 1876. You may well ask, and I have no doubt some of your Lordships are asking yourselves, why, after this long recital of modifications, I have any right to say this House is in need of reform. I do it on this ground—that all these modifications were indirect and inconsequential, and that not one of them, except the change in the method of voting and the suspension of proxies, was carried out by the House itself, for the deliberate purpose of reforming its own constitution. I might say, in another sense, that, while its status has been indirectly modified, the proceedings leading thereto have never been recognized by the House itself. Not only has the House of Lords been considerably modified in the great lapse of time, but all has changed around. Many of the institutions that were coeval with it have disappeared, and all that existed at the same time have been reformed. There is a great change which has taken place in the enormous power of the House of Commons, and the enormous increase, under the various reductions of the franchise, of the constituencies which elect the House of Commons. There is also a vast increase in the population of these Islands; and last, but not least, there are—what did not exist at the time of the inception of the House of Lords—a Newspaper Press, and a Colonial Empire. I would ask your Lordships to think of these two facts alone, without referring to any other great changes, and to consider what differences it must have made in this Institution, when a Newspaper Press and a Colonial Empire have come into existence since it commenced itself. But this House has never considered its position, as a whole, since the time before the Newspaper Press and the Colonial Empire were in existence; and these two facts, I think, would go far to support me in my Motion tonight. I am not, at this hour, going into the differences between the Middle Ages and the 19th century; but I think it is not unfair, in an argument of this sort, to indicate the changes going on around us, simply for the purpose of strengthening my Motion. I think I have shown, in the remarks I have already made, a primâ facie case why an Institution of antiquity should require, if not reconstruction, if not new machiney, at least a slight readjustment, and some repair;
  940
  and I venture to say that my modest proposition is little more than a request for a coat of new paint. I believe that an Institution of this antiquity, however efficient and however popular it may be, cannot exist without some small occasional modification. But I have to raise the question—Is this House efficient, and is it popular? Now, my Lords, the question of efficiency is a very delicate one, because it affects us all; but I think one may say, without risk of contradiction, that no human institution is perfect, and that it would be a very bad compliment to this House to suppose it was as efficient as it might be made. Your Lordships will admit that the Institutions of the 13th century are not likely to have been minutely calculated for the requirements of the 19th century. But, putting these general considerations aside, I think it is only fair to say that all admit the brilliancy of some of our Members and some of our debates. I believe that those lawyers who practise before the Private Bill Committees of this House think that our Committees are at least not inferior, and possibly superior, to those of the other House. What is the conclusion I draw from these two circumstances? It is that we possess an Assembly containing men of great ability, great business capacity, and great common sense. What further conclusion do I draw? It is, that neither the House nor the country derives the full benefit of this. We can put this to a very simple test, and it is this—Do our decisions command the respect and carry the weight that they deserve? I think this may be very easily tested, and very easily ascertained. Anybody who analyzes the list of the House of Lords will see that it contains a nucleus of men of the very highest distinction; and a few figures which I will lay before you, as compendiously as possible, will show that I am not rash in making this assertion. We have in this House 27 Bishops, every one of whom must have won his way to his position in this House by sheer merit, and by hard work. It is perfectly impossible to say that these 27 eminent individuals are not, by reason of their past career, an ornament to any Assembly. We have 24 Cabinet Ministers, or Peers who have been Cabinet Ministers; we have 21 Ambassadors, or Peers who have been Ambassadors; we

  941
  have six Governors General, or Governors Principal; we have two Peers who presided with great distinction over the Assembly of the House of Commons; we have eight very eminent Judges, besides the two Chancellors who sit in the House; we have two Field Marshals, exclusive of the blood Royal; and I have, therefore, made up a list of 73 individuals in these categories who may all be called men of the highest distinction in the country. Besides these, there are no less than 40 Admirals, Generals, and Ministers of rank inferior to Cabinet rank, past or present. That makes 113 men of high distinction. Then there is the Poet Laureate, whom we all are proud to welcome to this House, and no one can say that anything but distinction has been conferred on the House of Lords by the admission of Lord Tennyson. There is, at least, one Senior Wrangler; and there is my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Houghton), who has written some verses that will last as long as the language will. [A laugh.] I am sorry my reference to my noble Friend has caused a smile; but I am quite certain it is undeserved. Well, in that list I have designated 116 individuals who would be gladly included in any Second Chamber in the world. Let us compare this Assembly, with these 116 persons, with the most powerful and efficient Second Chamber that exists in the world. I do not suppose anybody conversant with the two Assemblies denies that, in point of weight of power and of authority, the Senate of the United States is the first Second Chamber in the world. Why is it that the Senate should exercise more power than the House of Lords? Why is it that it has greater power entrusted to it? Why is it that its decisions are decisions from which there is practically no appeal? I do not think it is from the individuals who compose it. I venture to say that the Senate of the United States does not comprise as many distinguished individuals as the House I am now addressing, and I will state why that is so. In the first place, the Cabinet Ministers of the United States have no seats in Congress. In the second place, there is a constant drain on the public men of that country to fill Governorships, and various State Offices; and, in the next place, as there are only two Representatives for each State, the
  942
  difficulty of getting into the Senate is very great. Why is it, then, that this Body in the United States exercises so much more power than your Lordships? It is not because they are an Elective Body—at least, I do not believe it is, because we have had great experience of Elective Second Chambers, and we know that, as a rule, Elective Second Chambers are not very valuable Institutions. I am not now going into the relative difference between the House of Lords and the Senate of the United States. I am not going to compare these two great Bodies. It would lead me very much beyond the scope of my Motion and my time; but I have only indicated the comparative difference between the two in order to show that there is some cause for inquiry from that point of view. In considering the weight of the decisions of the House of Lords, there are one or two points of practical importance to which I wish to direct your attention. The first is a point of some importance—I mean our quorum. The quorum of the House of Lords, as your Lordships are aware, is three. We have some opportunity of comparing that somewhat antiquated quorum with the quorums of other Assemblies. It is quite true that a quorum of the House of Commons is 40; but the House of Commons is a much more numerous Body, consisting of about 150 more Members. That, however, does not really bear on the argument; because when the House of Commons only contained as many Members as the House of Lords—before the Union with Scotland—its quorum was as great as it is now. I can give some experiences of the quorum of the House of Lords; but I would select two which throw some light on the subject. One occurred within my own recollection, and the other is somewhat legendary. I remember, since I have been a Member of this House, a noble Earl (the Earl of Leitrim), who afterwards met with a tragical end, addressing a quorum of your Lordships, consisting besides himself of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and the Minister who had to answer him, for four mortal hours by the clock—when this vast Hall in which we are seated contained only these three individuals.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I remember the

  943
  occasion, and I was present part of the time.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord's attendance, I understand, was only partial, and not for the whole time, so I may say three and a-half persons were present. Striking an average, I think that will be a satisfactory figure. One cannot but feel that that was a great waste of the time of the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, whoever he might have been, and that the obvious remedy would have been found in the practice of the House of Commons. A more legendary instance to which I will allude is one attributed to the period when the late Lord Lyndhurst was on the Woolsack. There was then a noble and learned Lord addressing the House on a question, apparently of no great public interest, and addressing it at some length. Lord Lyndhurst was naturally anxious to attend a dinner to which he was invited, and as the clock got nearer to 8, that learned person grew more and more impatient. He made every sign; he took out his watch; he interrupted; he might have feigned sleep for all I know; but this produced no effect on the noble and learned Lord who was addressing the House. At last the Lord Chancellor said—"This is too bad—can't you stop?" There was no stop. At last Lord Lyndhurst rose, in the full grandeur of despair at the situation, and said—"By Jove, so and so, I will count you out;" and it was well within the province of the late Lord Lyndhurst, because he and the learned Lord who was addressing the House were the only Peers present. I think the Select Committee might find some matter for consideration in the quorum of your Lordships' House. I will pass now to another fact; but I will not dwell on it, because I know the speech that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will make about it if I alluded to it at length. But I allude to that stock complaint of the barren six months, followed by a fruitful fortnight, which comprises our ordinary Session. Sir Walter Scott, in the course of some very stirring verses, has said—
  "One crowded hour of glorious life
  Is worth an age without a name."
  And if that is so, the House of Lords is in that fortunate position, because it passed an age without a name, followed
  944
  by an hour crowded with life at the end of the Session. But, my Lords, I do not think this is a desirable position for your Lordships' House. I believe that some remedy might be found for it, and I am quite sure that a Select Committee would do no harm in considering it. Well, my Lords, we know that a great part of our legislative functions are conducted in a somewhat fruitless manner at this season of the year. We have no Bills introduced into this House except Bills of such a lofty morality that they cannot be presented point blank to the coarser palate of the House of Commons. I am sometimes reminded, when I think, of these things, of an anecdote which is told of the Emperor Napoleon III. It is said that when he was a child his favourite amusement was watering his garden; but that the nurse, to take care that he should suffer no danger, always put warm water in the watering pot. I am always reminded of that anecdote when I think of the artificial atmosphere in which we are compelled to pass our measures. Then there is the question of Joint Committees. I believe that a system of Joint Committees would, to a large extent, relieve the congestion in one House and the inanition in the other by an amicable consideration of Bills. I do not know whether it would really be so; but I venture to point it out as a subject of inquiry. As to private legislation, surely a great deal might be done by Joint Committees on Private Bills. I do not think your Lordships always know the enormous expense and trouble of persons coming to Parliament for private legislation. I believe I am not misinformed when I state that one abortive project last year, which did not succeed in passing the Committee of this House, cost no less than £60,000. It was passed this year; but I venture to think that even if it were only in regard to the question of Joint Committees, it would be worth while to appoint a Committee of this House to inquire. There is another point which I only wish to allude to in passing; but it does affect the weight of the decision of this House—I mean the character of our Divisions. It does, no doubt, lessen the effect of our Divisions when the habitual attendants of the House on great occasions are swamped by a sudden influx of regular absentees. Now, my Lords, I do

  945
  not believe that the system can permanently continue without serious detriment to your Lordships' House. I do not wish to dwell upon it, because I am guarding myself to-night most scrupulously from indicating any plan or scheme of my own; but I believe the appointment of a Committee would do much towards strengthening of our position. I ventured to ask whether this House was efficient. I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships the reasons, on both sides, which makes one feel that its efficiency is not so great as it ought to be. Let me now say a word about the popularity of this House, and when I say the popularity, I mean popularity in its largest and in its widest sense. My Lords, as regards the popularity of this House, I should be inclined to say this—that it is neither so popular as its friends assert, nor so unpopular as its enemies make out. I believe that there are a certain number of our Members who have great contact with the people at large—great touch of the population of this country; but they have not, and they cannot have, the constant compulsory connection with the nation that adds so much to the strength of the House of Commons. Now, that is perfectly true; but I think that in spite of all this we may represent some vital principle more powerful than popularity, and which may take the place of popularity, and I think that is a subject which is very well worth considering. We have a great variety of very complex interests which might be represented in this House. There are the various portions of our vast Empire—our commerce, our professions, our Churches. All these might very well be represented in this House. Now, my Lords, how far are they represented? Take the Churches. We have a considerable number of Bishops, and I think the Episcopal Church of this country is well represented in this House. We have a considerable number of Roman Catholic Peers, which I regard as a great advantage, and as redressing the want of Roman Catholic representation from England and Scotland in the House of Commons. We have some Presbyterians here, but we have hardly any Dissenting Peers, and I believe that the Dissenting interest is one which is well worthy of being represented in this House. There is,
  946
  therefore, an immense preponderance of the representation of the Church of England. I make no complaint of this; I only notice the fact. But let us take the professions that might be represented in this House. The Army is well represented; the Navy is tolerably well represented; the law is well represented; but the profession of medicine is, so far as I know, not represented at all. My Lords, it is very easy to say that the profession of medicine is not wanted in this House. But I remember very well a distinguished Leader who has gone from us, but whose name will never be mentioned in this House without respect, who said that his policy was entirely a sanitary policy, and he summed it up in the motto, sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas. But surely it cannot be maintained that when sanitary questions are put in the forefront of the policy of the Government, this House would be any worse off for having some assistance from the great Faculty of Medicine. Well, we have men of science. I see the noble Lord opposite (Lord Rayleigh) who was Senior Wrangler, and whom we are proud to see a Member of this House. The late Lord Crawford was also a Member of this House; but, considering the nature of this Chamber, men of science might be better represented than they are. Then there is literature, which might very well be more largely represented, and which has, I believe, been more largely represented than it is now. We have some great literary men. I will not name them for fear of provoking any expression of jealousy or discontent. But literature might very well be more largely represented than it is, because this is a House in which men of letters might very well encounter the troubles and the storms of polities, without all the hard work that requires to be undergone in the other House of Parliament. Then there are the commercial and mercantile interests of the community. We have four or five noble Lords connected with the banking and railway interests. I view those Representatives as persons of great importance in our debates; but I do not feel, I confess, that the great commercial interests of this country are so adequately represented in this House as they should be; and when we consider how enormously they are represented in the other House, we must feel

  947
  that we have a certain inferiority in this respect. As regards that branch of my subject, I think it may be summed up in a sentence, by saying that there is too much receiving of rent in this House and too little paying of rent. We represent too much one class; we see one side of the shield too much. I see a Lord from Ireland shakes his head. I know what he means; but he must know that we are all in the same boat. Then there is the question of the Arts. This House prides itself greatly on its knowledge of the Arts. There are no questions which are so fiercely debated in this House as questions of taste, and there is no question which has caused so much Party excitement in the House of Lords in recent years as the question of the removal of the Duke of Wellington's Statue, and yet we have no artists amongst us. I cannot doubt, however, that these debates would be greatly improved by the infusion of some of the artistic element. India is fairly represented, for we have two Governors General (the Earl of Northbrook and the Earl of Lytton) and two Governors Principal (the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Napier and Ettrick) who have had contact with India; but the Colonies I regard as very inadequately represented in this House, considering the many millions whose interests we have to regard. I do not think that five Representatives are enough for this, when we recollect that one of those five Representatives is at his post in Canada, that another is at his post at Constantinople, another has not yet returned to his post, and we are thus reduced to two Peers in this House who have practical contact with the Colonies. I venture to say that that is not sufficient. Well, my Lords, there is another class which is absolutely not represented in this House, and I suppose it is absolutely necessary that it should be unrepresented. That is the labouring class. I dare say it is absolutely impossible that the labouring class should be represented in this House; but I would ask your Lordships to think of the numbers and the power of the working classes of this country. Do you not feel that it is a great deficiency in this House that that enormous power should be absolutely unrepresented. ["No!"] I hear a noble Lord say "No." I wish I could agree with him. I believe one reason of our rela-
  948
  tive weakness, when compared with, the House of Commons, is that we have no representation of the labouring classes. I only mention this as part of the case with which we have to deal. I shall sum up this part of my subject by saying that we want, if possible, new elements—an infusion of the ideas of other classes—new representatives, new sources of information. I believe that if we could obtain this without a radical reconstruction of the House, the House would be very largely the gainer. But this is only an indication. I do not regard my authority as of the slightest value in a case of this sort; but I will read words which are of the very highest authority. These are words spoken by the noble Marquess opposite the Leader of the Conservative Party in 1869—
  "It appears to me, however, that the deficiency which may be recognised in the constitution of the House of Lords has been imprinted on it by the lapse of time, and does not belong to its original constitution. That deficiency consists in this—that we want a larger infusion from those largo classes among whom is to be found so much of the wealth and power of the country. We belong too much to one class, and the consequence is that, with respect to a large number of questions, we are all too much of one mind. Now, that is a fact which appears to me to be injurious to the character of the House as a political Assembly in two ways: The House of Lords, though not an elective, is strictly a representative, Assembly, and it does, in point of fact, represent very large classes in the country. But if you wish this representation to be effective, you must take care that it is sufficiently wide; and it is undoubtedly true that, for one reason or another, those classes whose wealth and power depend on commerce and mercantile industry do not find their representation in this House so large or so adequate as do those whose wealth and power depend upon the agricultural interest and landed property. We have, indeed, a certain number of mercantile Representatives in this House. They are admirable in every way, and I confess that if it were possible to increase their number the House would be a large gainer by the change. And it would be a gainer also in another way. We want, if possible, more representation of diverse views, and more antagonism. On certain subjects, it is true, we have antagonism enough—on Church subjects, for instance, and on the interesting question as to who should occupy the Benches opposite. But there arc a vast number of social questions deeply interesting to the people of this country, especially questions with reference to the health and moral condition of the people—and on which many Members of your Lordships' House are capable of throwing great light, and yet these subjects are not closely investigated here, because the fighting power is wanting, and the debates cannot be sustained. Now, if it were

  949
  possible that the machinery proposed by the noble Earl could be to any extent effective to correct this evil, the advantage to the deliberations of your Lordships' House would be very great indeed; and it was in that sense that I said I should like to see the proposition of the noble Earl carried further."—(3 Hansard, [195] 463–4.)
  I regard that as a very weighty testimony in support of my argument. That speech was delivered in a discussion of a favourite remedy which has often been proposed to this House—the remedy of Life Peers. That is far too large a question to deal with at present; but I since the debate took place, by a sort of side wind, three official Life Peers have been introduced into this House, and I venture to submit to the better judgment of your Lordships' House whether it would not be a fair question on the part of this Committee to consider whether the principle might not with advantage be extended. My Lords, I do not know if it would be possible, in regard to the representation of classes, to adopt at all the principle which, in judging matters, is called the principle of assessors, and in the Congress of the United States is called the principle of delegates—I mean consultative and temporary Representatives, persons who may be summoned to "deliberate and advise," instead of to "deliberate and determine," in the old form of the Rules of the Judges of this country. But what representative elements does that House include? It is difficult to see more than three—the Church, the hereditary principle, and landed property. There is no need to discuss these on this occasion. I am not considering the points on which this House is strongest; I am endeavouring to point out some of the weaknesses and deficiencies in this House; but I should like to make a remark as to the position of the Church in this House. We have 26 Bishops and seven Peers. The Church is represented in this House, therefore, by the favour of the Crown, largely tempered by the chances of survival. I remember pointing out in 1878 the great disadvantages which would accrue to this House when the seven Bishoprics then in contemplation were all filled up, because the junior Bishop of the seven would have to wait for six vacancies on the Episcopal Bench before he could enter your Lordships' House. I will give you one illustration
  950
  of what the disadvantage of that may be. The most brilliant speech I have probably ever heard in this House was the speech of the Bishop of Peterborough on the Irish Church Act of 1869. If these seven Bishoprics had not been in existence at the time the Bishop of Peterborough had been made a Bishop, he would not have been in the House until the year 1878; and we would have lost one of the principal ornaments of this House until that time. The creation of Bishoprics is very largely increasing, rather in deference to the spiritual wants of localities—and very properly so—than to the increased efficiency of this House; and I venture to point out that if these Bishoprics go on being numerically extended, it will be absolutely necessary, if we do not wish Bishops to enter this House when they are too old to adapt themselves to the forms and methods of the House, and if we wish them to enter before they are superannuated, it will be absolutely necessary to adopt the principle of delegation. With regard to property, the House of Lords represents a great deal of land; but there is even a change with regard to that. When the House of Lords consisted largely of a territorial aristocracy, the land was the main source and sign of wealth in this country. That has long ceased to be so. The great fortunes made in commerce exceed all the landed income by a very great deal, except such of your Lordships as are fortunate enough to possess urban property. Not merely has land decreased in its relative value, but in the last few years it has decreased in absolute value. That seems to me to affect largely the relations of this House, as being the mainstay and representation of property. I will take another point worthy of consideration. When this House was the House of territorial aristocracies, it was composed of Members who had properties which were, practically, inalienable; but that has long ceased to be the case. The legislation passed by the noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns), and the legislation for Scotland, in which I had some hand, has made it possible for any Member of this House to alienate his estates. That that alienation of land is going on at a rapid rate cannot be doubted by anyone who watches the course of events. The other day The Times published the largest num-

  951
  ber it has ever 'published; and why? Because it had six pages of advertisements of land for sale. No one can shut his eves to the fact that this must make a great change in this House. It is quite true that, as men become wealthy, they are very liable to be made Peers; but it cannot be disguised that the connection of the present Peerage with property in land may be, to a very large extent, affected by the causes to which I have alluded. But I will take this comfort to myself—that if this House had contained all the wealthiest men in the country, it would be so much the worse for this House. I confess that, in these days, when the taxes on property become more frequent, I think there would be considerable danger to the existence and security of this House if it contained all the men of the largest property. The Emperor Nero is supposed to have wished that all his enemies had but one neck, that he might, with one blow of his sword, put an end to them all; and a body, mainly composed of all the great owners of property, more especially of landed property, becomes a mere target for attack, and concentrates upon itself the hostility and rapacity of all other classes. Only to give one instance, to show how dangerous it may be to an Institution to become overloaded, I will take the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. That Church, at the time of the Reformation, is said to have possessed—I am speaking from memory—at least three-fifths of the land of Scotland. What was the result? That Church was found to be extremely powerful, yet its Disestablishment only took a single day to accomplish. That was the result of having too much property. I should be glad to see this House strengthened by a greater accession of men who have wealth in land; but I should be sorry to see it become the most contemptible Assembly in the world — an Assembly of plutocrats. Having discussed the actual state of this House, and having ventured to point out some deficiencies in this House, which, I think, are matters not unworthy of your Lordships' attention, I venture to say in this century in which we live there is especial necessity to notice this subject. We are living in the full blaze of the 19th century. Every Institution is canvassed and examined; there is no hope that we can escape in-
  952
  quiry, and I do not believe we wish to escape inquiry. As it is, we do not escape inquiry. There are voices both from within and from without calling for some such inquiry as that which I have advocated. The voices from without demand both revision and improvement. I need hardly say I should never think of asking your Lordships to accord this Committee from any fear of reform. If no higher motive would induce your Lordships to consider the matter, I should say that reform has come too late. Bodies that begin to reform themselves when the hand of the destroyer is upon them do not live to complete the task. It was too late for the Senate to deliberate when the Gaul was in their midst; it was too late for the House of Commons to discuss abstract questions when Cromwell was at the Table. It will be too late to move for any Select Committee when the voice which calls for radical reform or abolition becomes loud and universal. I would not ask any high-minded Body to deliberate under a menace. But what is heard now is not a demand for abolition. It is a calm discussion of the position and utility of this House; inquiries as to the possibility of propping up this ancient structure; schemes for improvement, not plans for destruction; and I firmly believe what the people of England want is no abolition and no violent reform of this House, but simply to have as efficient a Second Chamber as can be furnished. Now, my Lords, this public opinion makes itself heard in every speech that is delivered on the subject. It makes itself heard in every magazine that is published; it makes itself heard in all the newspapers. If your Lordships wished to shut your ears you could not but hear, and if you wished not to see you could not but see; but I believe it is your Lordships' anxiety both to hear and to see; and it is for that reason I am bringing forward this proposition to-night. I am strengthened in this belief by many circumstances both public and private, but mainly by the fact that, besides the voices from without that call for amendment or reconstruction, there are also voices from within. My noble Friend on the Cross Benches has written an article in which, though vindicating the general position of your Lordships' House, he called for some revision of its Business arrange-

  953
  ments. My noble Friend (the Earl of Dunraven) has lately contributed an article in which he makes some stringent suggestions as to the alteration of the procedure of this House; and an hon. Member who sits in the other House—the eldest son of a Peer who sits in this House—I mean Mr. Brodrick, a Member of the Conservative Party—has published in a Conservative review an article calling for some revision or some remodelling of the constitution of this House. He discussed plans; but it is not my business to discuss plans in connection with my Motion. That is a matter for the Committee. I welcome any practical suggestion, more especially from those who have sat in this House, who know the work of it, and who are convinced that something may be done in the way of reform. I am not in love with paper Constitutions and paper Second Chambers. The Abbé de Sieves would have constructed a dozen such Chambers in a week; but none of them would have lasted longer than that period. I have given my reasons why I believe some measure of inquiry is requisite. Let me now say briefly why I have adopted the method of a Select Committee. A Select Committee with regard to a measure of importance may be one of two things. It may either be a hatching machine or a sepulchre; it may either be the grave or the vivifying principle of any measure which is submitted to it. I am anxious for this Committee to be a hatching machine. I am anxious that those who have practical and substantial suggestions for the reform of this House may bring them to this Committee, and may, if they are substantial, receive strength and endorsement from the proceedings of this Committee. If, however, the schemes which may be brought before the Committee are addled, I am anxious that they should remain so. I would have the Committee as large as you like, or as small as you like. In my humble opinion, the larger it might be made the better it would be; but what I would ask would be that it should be as largely and broadly representative of the different sections and interests in this House as possible; that it should fully and fairly, and with unprejudiced mind, inquire whether the status, the basis, and the scope of your Lordships' House can be improved. It may be as slow
  954
  and gradual as it chooses, as long as it gives an exhaustive consideration to the subject. If it found that the procedure or position of this House can be amended, it would then be its duty to report a scheme. If it came to the conclusion that the position of this House was absolutely perfect, it would then be its duty to give its reasons for this conclusion. But, it may be asked, why, instead of the uncertain medium of a Select Committee, do you not bring a substantial proposition before the House? I think there is a very good reason for that. I should not care to proceed summarily in a matter of such vital importance, even if I had the power of doing it. I do not believe that any individual in your Lordships' House—not even the noble Marquess who leads the other side, or the noble Earl who leads this side—would have the slightest chance of carrying any substantial proposition by his own unaided authority in this House. I may be wrong, but that is the strong conclusion to which I have come; and I need hardly say, if they have no chance, my chances would be small indeed. But I am inclined to believe that your Lordships might not be unwilling to listen to any well-considered proposition proceeding from a well-chosen Committee of this House; and it is for that reason, mainly, I have adopted that proceeding on this occasion. I know it is urged—a sort of metaphorical argument—that this House is so ancient a structure that it is better not to touch it, lest it fall about our ears; but if I pursue that argument to its logical conclusion, I should say it is a somewhat dangerous one to urge, because if the House is in such a condition that it will not bear to be touched, it does not need much foresight to see that it will soon become an unsafe structure. I do not believe that the argument is used by anybody in this House. I believe it is used by the false friends of this House, or, if I may borrow a phrase from Sir Stafford North-cote, by the "bonnets" of this House; and I do not think it is one of which further notice may be taken, except to point out that, if it has any validity at all, it has a painful validity upon this Assembly. I believe the House and the nation will not take this view of the House of Lords, and that it would view with the greatest satisfaction the spectacle of this House, without outward

  955
  pressure of any kind, endeavouring to reform itself and examine its own construction. I believe such a proceeding would have a most salutary effect on public opinion; and, my Lords, as we have no constituencies, it is on public opinion that this House must rest for its true strength. I have to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me, and have to apologize sincerely for the length of my observations. I do not think it would have been respectful to introduce so large a subject without some statement of the reasons which have induced me to do so. But before I lay my Motion on the Table, I would ask one favour at the hands of your Lordships. It is that in considering this proposition you should consider it without any prepossession as to the quarter from which it comes. No one knows better than myself the insignificance of the individual who now addresses you. I can assure you, from the bottom of my heart, that I would gladly have waited and stepped into the background if anybody of more importance had taken up the question. But we who are the friends of Reform have waited long enough. "Rusticus expectat dum de fluit amnis" which may be freely translated by "One may die of thirst while the river runs away." I feel that every day of the postponement of this question does harm. Every day that passes over this House, and that confirms the outside public in the belief that this House is very unwilling or afraid to investigate its own position, does harm. As to the Party side of the question, apart from the individual aspect of my Motion, I have simply to say that there is no Party side, because it is a matter of general and universal interest. But I will say this—that no more Conservative Motion, in the highest and best sense of the word, has ever, in my time, been submitted to this House. I have no doubt that noble Lords opposite will not consider me the most suitable exponent of the Conservative creed; but I think they will allow that Conservatism is not petrefaction, or blindness, or deafness, or a folding of the hands in sleep; but that the truest Conservatism consists in seasonable, moderate, and timely reform. After six centuries of unchanged existence, no one can consider it a premature proposition that a Committee for
  956
  the investigation of the system, of this House should be proposed on this occasion. But that is all that this proposition pledges your Lordships to do. It has no larger meaning and no larger scope than that. It may surely be called a moderate and a Conservative proposition. I have used the word Conservative in its highest and best sense; but, in its mere Party sense, I venture to say it is an advantageous proposition from a Conservative point of view. It can be no secret to your Lordships that the more ardent spirits of the Party to which I belong do not wish for the reform of the House of Lords. They wish for its abolition. They wish, with the view of uprooting it, to point it out both as unreforming and as unreformed. They wish to point it out as a mediaeval barque, stranded, by some strange chance or irony of time, across the teeming harbour of the 19th century, and acting only as an obstacle to more active and useful shipping. When you wish to disestablish an Institution, you do not permit it to reform itself; you shut it out from air and light. You prevent any refreshing and beneficent influence from reaching it, and gradually you put in progress that decay to which it is your intention to appeal as the prognostic of approaching dissolution. I hope your Lordships will not play the game of your enemies on this occasion, but entertain a moderate proposition for inquiry and reform. More especially do I urge it at this moment, when the House of Commons, for the third time in less than 60 years, is broadening and strengthening and increasing its own foundations, and when, within the last two years, the House of Commons has devoted an entire Session to the amelioration of its own procedure. I think the rejection of inquiry at such a moment as this would present not merely a bad appearance, but would indicate a real defect. If these considerations are not sufficient to induce your Lordships to grant my proposition, let me bring forward the most practical consideration within my power. It is this—It is our mysterious destiny to sit within this House. I think, under these circumstances, it is our obvious duty, as well as it is our obvious interest, to make this House as powerful and as respectable as possible. The doors of this House only open inwards. I dare say if they opened outward as well

  957
  —if there were any chance of their being thrown open—that some of your Lordships who wished for the enlargement of the scope of this House would be willing to relapse into an attitude of expectancy. But there is no such prospect. The sole chance of political usefulness that lies to your Lordships lies within the walls of this House; the sole chance of increasing your opportunities of political usefulness lies in developing, in increasing1, and in strengthening the power of this House. I venture to think that any such strengthening must be preceded by inquiry, and it is for that reason that I venture to ask your endorsement of the slight, the gradual, and the moderate proposition for an inquiry which I lay before you on this occasion. If I might Bum up in one simple phrase what I believe the best friends of the House of Lords wish for, it would be this—As regards the individual, greater responsibility; as regards the body, the broadening of its foundations, and the enlargement of the scope of its opportunities. I believe that any measure you could adopt will have that object, and will make this House worthy to be remembered among all the illustrious generations of Peers which have preceded you. I would ask you in this connection to remember the eloquent words which were uttered by Mr. Burke, a name ever to be honoured in either House of Parliament. He said—
  "We have a great hereditary heritage hero, those who have their own honour, and the honour of their ancestors, and of their posterity to guard."
  I think it is impossible to have a nobler conception of a hereditary Chamber, because it presents the aspect of a triple responsibility — a responsibility that governs the present, that has a finger to the future, and a finger to the past. I claim that the Peers who now inhabit this House are at least not inferior to the Peers who sat in judgment upon Warren Hastings; but I firmly believe that you will best fulfil that sublime function of guarding the honour of generations both living and dead, and of generations yet unborn, by embracing vigilantly every opportunity of testing the soundness of the structure of this House by examining its foundations, and by adding, as far as may be done, dignity, efficiency, strength, and power to that ancient In-
  958
  stitution of which you are the existing trustees.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee he appointed to consider the best means of promoting the efficiency of this House."—(The Earl Rosebery.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that their Lordships would concur with him in congratulating the noble Earl opposite on the eloquence and the moderation, as well as the courage, with which he had introduced the subject. There was need for consideration of the motive power which actuated their Lordships' House. Not long ago a measure was on the second reading carried by seven votes; but in a subsequent Division it was negatived by three votes. There were 516 Peers, of whom eight were minors and six permanently employed abroad. Of those, 132, or upwards of one-quarter, were more than 70 years of age. Some of those noble Lords might be supposed to be unequal to the duties of their position. But they had no power to divest themselves of their functions; once a Peer always a Peer. In the other House a Member was at liberty to resign his seat; and the question was whether some such power ought not to be possessed by their Lordships. During the last Parliament, out of the 516 noble Lords only 332 spoke or voted. In 1876 the number was 330; in 1877, 369; in 1878, 303, and the maximum was reached in 1879, when the country was much interested in foreign affairs, and the number was 394. The average during the whole period was 345. That seemed to show that it would be none the worse if some of their Lordships resigned their legislative powers. There was among their Lordships a representative element in the Scotch and Irish Peers, of whom the former were elected for each Parliament and the latter for life. In a recent great Division only one Scotch Peer was absent, and that Peer held an official position, and did not wish to take part in the question. On the Division on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, at which 336 Peers were present, only three Scotch Representative Peers were absent. Thus, if the proposed Committee entered upon the question of Representative Members of that House, they would only be increasing an element which already existed. Their Lordships had done away with proxies; but by the repeal of the Standing Order

  959
  they could be revived. It was undoubtedly true that the constitution of the House did not command so great respect as was desirable. The noble Earl had referred to the undoubted j talents of the Episcopal Bench and of the Lords of Appeal. There was no reason why the principle of Life Peerages should be confined to those two classes. The nation was not confined to the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and he could not help thinking that if they could see their way to introducing into the House, either as Life Peers or as assessors, Representatives of the Colonies, some of those who had done good service in India, and who understood what were the opinions and feelings of the various races over whom we held sway, they would add to the weight and influence which they possessed in the country. There were, too, distinguished Generals and Admirals, who shrank from accepting hereditary Peerages from want of adequate fortune, who might make serviceable Members of that Assembly. It might be said that a handle would thereby be given to unscrupulous Ministers for Party purposes. But such methods had already been employed, and in 1711 and again in 1832 Peers had been created for the special purpose of carrying particular measures. There was no danger of that House losing its independent character. On the Compensation for Disturbance Bill no fewer than 15 Peers who had held Office in a Liberal Administration had voted against their Party. He would not enter into other reforms of the House, such as the absence of any appeal to a Speaker on points of Order, and of any authority to control irrelevance. He entirely agreed with what the noble Earl opposite had said. His proposal would no doubt stir up mixed feelings on this side of the House; but it was in truth and reality a most Conservative proposal. If they resisted reform they would only play into the hands of their opponents. Nothing would more effectually stem the tide of democracy than a satisfactory reform of their constitution and procedure. The electorate of this country was extremely fickle, as was shown by the General Elections of 1874 and 1880. Unless there were an efficient Second Chamber, political life would become nothing better than a scramble for place,
  960
  power, and profit; and in order to make their Lordships' House such a Chamber he would cordially support the Motion of the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble Friend who has made this Motion that this is not a Party question. It is one that concerns the whole House and the Conservative Party in it as much as the Liberal Party. It is a matter upon which the whole House should have an opinion, and not one upon which the Government need take the initiative in directing their followers. The noble Earl stated that he had never had a seat in the other House of Parliament. Many years ago I was a Member of that House, and I look back to those days with the greatest interest and pleasure. But I cannot forget that for the last 38 years my political, official, and Parliamentary life has been really centred in this House. Though holding those Liberal opinions which as a young man I adopted, still it is impossible for anyone so long connected with the House of Lords as I have been not to have a sort of Conservative feeling with regard to it. I have this feeling all the stronger owing to the kindness of my noble Friends in this House, and of the great indulgence that I have met with from noble Lords opposite. My noble Friend has brought forward a very important question in a most remarkably able speech—a speech characterized by more than his usual ability, by a variety and incisiveness and a sympathy which I am sure your Lordships heartily appreciate. My noble Friend says that we can hardly pretend that no reform is necessary when he instances the great advantages conferred on another Assembly by the reforms which have taken place with regard to it. The principal fault I have to find with the speech of my noble Friend is on account of the statement, two or three times repeated, that he himself proposed nothing to your Lordships. A great deal turns on that. If we adopt the words of his Motion, we shall be asserting and implying that there is inefficiency in this House. And I am very much afraid that if we made any such admission without seeing pretty clearly our way to the result of the Committee which the noble Earl desires to have appointed, we should be weakening and not strengthening this Assembly. The attributes of this House are judicial,

  961
  deliberative, and legislative. Thirty-eight years ago, when I entered the House, there were in it remarkable men, eminent statesmen, eloquent Prelates, great lawyers. I must say that I do not see the slightest degeneration in this respect at the present time. In regard to the judicial functions of the House, I am not sure that they are quite logical; but I believe that, with the assistance which it receives from its traditions, the legal decisions of this House have given the highest satisfaction to suitors and the public. With regard to the deliberative functions of the House, I do not believe that the power of debate is diminishing in this House; and in the speech of my noble Friend to-night we have had an illustration of this, and an indication that that power of debate is likely to be continued. With regard to legislation, I entirely agree with the opinion of my noble Friend that there is something of a scandal which does harm to this House in the fact that on ordinary occasions the attendance of noble Lords is not large, while upon the occasions of Party Divisions the Benches are absolutely crowded by those who do not seem to attend to politics at all. I own that that is a great grievance. I think the noble Earl would have done some good if he had pointed out how this could be prevented. If he had done so, I should have been more inclined to vote for his Motion. The question of the quorum, to which the noble Earl also alluded, is, I think, only a small one. There is no doubt that it is a grievance that Bills should be crowded into this House at the end of the Session; but what particular recommendation could the Committee make on that point? The noble Earl did not give us any indication.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I suggested that a Joint Committee of both Houses, by some amicable arrangement, should consider that matter.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I agree with the noble Earl that the system of Private Bills requires great revision. I think that the time and money that are spent is a scandal. But this is not a matter that the House of Lords by itself can deal with. It appears to me that it is a matter for a Joint Committee of both Houses, and that such a Committee might lead to very valuable results indeed. The noble Lord mentioned a
  962
  point of great importance—that there is a disadvantage in the fact that this House, with one exception, only represents one form and one section of religious belief. I agree with him on that point. I also quite agree that it is most desirable that rich men representing commerce and trade should become Members of this House; but I am afraid that in many cases their sons might become bankrupts in the next generation, or they might purchase an enormously valuable estate and become just as good landowners as the present Peers. I should also be glad to see an addition of literary, artistic, and scientific men to this House. No one rejoiced more than I did when Lord Macaulay entered the House, and when my noble Friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Houghton) was raised to the Peerage on account of his literary and also his political services. The recent accession of the Poet Laureate I regarded as a distinction to this House. I greatly regretted that your Lordships decided in the case of Lord Wensleydale that the Royal Prerogative should not be used for the creation of Life Peers. I believe that would have been of great use. As I understand my noble Friend, he, while guarding himself from any definite proposal, made special reference to the Senate of the United States. If the suggested Committee was to meet and proposed that the House of Lords was to have all the powers of that Senate in regard to international relations and other cognate subjects, I am afraid there would not be the slightest chance of any practical result arising from that recommendation. I cannot conceive anything more unlikely than that the House of Commons, which is now grown so powerful, would consent to confer on the House of Lords new and unprecedented privileges. In regard to the Life Peerages, that is a very different thing. My fear is, that if this Motion was now granted, we should have a mere fishing Committee from which we do not know what would issue. I am afraid that would not strengthen the House of Lords. But if on this point of Life Peerages there were an intimation from the opposite Benches that the. House would be likely to reconsider its opinion, I should be most anxious that a Committee should inquire into that subject. If there is no indication of that change of opinion,

  963
  and if we are merely to appoint a Committee which is almost certain to arrive at no satisfactory result, and which would not be supported by the House at large, I should be unwilling to vote for the Motion. I have not yet made up my mind what vote I shall give, and it will depend on the language of noble Lords opposite.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to think that the last sentence of the noble Earl is scarcely consistent with his assertion that this is not a Party question. If it is not a Party question, it cannot matter two straws to the noble Earl what noble Lords on this side of the House think or say. My own feeling with respect to the Motion is, that, without for a moment laying down the doctrine that no change in this House is possible or desirable — a proposition which I would not lay down in regard to any institution—yet that we cannot vote for change in the abstract until we know the nature of the change which is to be made. To appoint a Select Committee such as that proposed by the noble Earl the Mover of this Motion, hardly seems to me the right method of proceeding, according to the precedents which we have to guide us. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), in the speech with which he introduced his Motion—and I may hero state that I fully concur in the eulogy passed by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon that speech, as one of the greatest eloquence and ability — in that speech the noble Earl referred especially to the precedent of the House of Commons as one that would guide us in attempting to reform this House. Well, the House of Commons was reformed, because it was alleged that it did not in its composition answer the Constitutional theory upon which it was based. I do not know that anybody has advanced such a doctrine with respect to this House; but, be that as it may, it is certain that the House of Commons was never reformed by referring its constitution to a Select Committee. When public opinion arrived at such a point that it was thought it was good to reform the House of Commons, and when that opinion was shared by the House of Commons itself, the mode of procedure was that the Government ascertained what was the measure that it was their duty to propose to Parlia-
  964
  ment, and, without shifting their responsibility to a Select Committee, they brought down that measure and laid it before Parliament. If there ever were any considerable reform desired in this House, and eventually carried out, I venture to say it will not be done by the previous appointment of a Select Committee. It will be done by some proposal coming from the Ministers of the Crown, as in the House of Commons. Then, again, I do not think sufficient ground has been shown for taking any action, either in the indication of the evils to be remedied, or the remedies to be applied. Take the question of numbers to which the noble Earl referred. He says it is a great evil that the ordinary attendances should be so small, and the attendances so large on an occasion of importance. I was surprised to hear that argument, until I remembered that the noble Earl has not passed much time in the House of Commons, because in the House of Commons it is the most ordinary phenomenon in the world. A question is debated there by very few persons for the greater part of the evening, and when the evening draws to a close and the Division Bell rings, numbers of Gentlemen who have been employing themselves quite as profitably elsewhere rush in. I do not believe a deliberative Assembly exists in which the ordinary attendances at common-place and routine work bear in any way a proportion to those which are to be found upon the occasions of critical and Party Divisions. Then there is another point which, no doubt, is a matter that requires great consideration, and that is the character of those who form the Members of this House; and I agree with the noble Earl that it is a misfortune that we have not persons of a faith different from that of the Church of England and Roman Catholics, and that it is a still greater misfortune that we have not representatives of the industry and commerce of this country in very much larger numbers. There are, no doubt, many subjects with which we cannot deal as thoroughly and efficiently as we could desire, and the presence of such representatives would greatly assist our deliberations. Such men have been raised to Peerages from time to time, and among them we may remember men like Lord Overstone and Lord Ashburton, and others; but they have

  965
  always been exposed to the difficulty—that in the second generation, if they remained in trade, the stability of their position was open to some doubt, and if they left trade, in the next generation they ceased to represent the industry on account of which they were created. The noble Earl said he would assent to this Committee if a certain intimation came from the other side; but I demur to that statement, as wholly inconsistent with, his doctrine that this is not a Party question. In what I am now going to say, I represent no one but myself. I undoubtedly have always held that the appointment of Life Peerages, if strictly limited so as to prevent the House from being swamped by the Prerogative of Ministers of the day, would increase the facility of the House for performing its proper Business, and strengthen both its reputation and ability. If the Crown possessed the power of creating an unlimited number of Life Peerages, the independence of this House would pass away; but there is no reason why they should not be limited either to an absolute number, or to a number to be created every year, which will effect the same object, and will, I believe, be a very large contribution to the power of this House to discharge its proper duties. But, my Lords, what is the real evil? Why is it that my noble Friend applies his matchless eloquence at this moment to the constitution of the House of Lords? There is one reason, but I cannot imagine that it would have any effect on his impartial mind, and that is because the majority in the House of Lords happens to be Conservative. But that, of course, is a phenomenon which is probably temporary, at all events in its present degree; and the circumstance that the majority in the House of Commons is large in the other direction, and that, to a certain extent, jealousy is aroused between the two Houses by the observance of that distinction, that is obviously the result of the peculiar circumstances of our own day, which will probably last a very few years, and on which it would be very unwise to base any legislation. But there is, no doubt, another reason—that everybody says that Parliament does not work, and that the machine is not going. Is that the fault of the House of Lords? I should say the real truth of the case is this. Parliament does not work; and
  966
  the other House, owing to circumstances peculiar to itself, is able to cover its inactivity by a profusion of words which gives the appearance of extreme energy and work, while we, unfortunately, have a tendency to taciturnity in this House which exposes the nakedness of our programme. If we only talked as much as the House of Commons, everybody would think we were just as active as they in effecting legislation. I will only say that if that is really the motive of my noble Friend, then the taciturnity of this House has become a great public evil, and I would earnestly ask my noble Friend to employ his oratory in trying to persuade noble Lords who sit here to take a more active part in the debates of this House than they do now. At the bottom of the question lies the essential difficulty of settling what is to be a Second Chamber in these days. Every sane man knows you must have a Second Chamber. It is generally admitted that, with one exception, this is the most efficient Second Chamber in the world, and that one exception, the Senate of the United States, is produced by circumstances and possesses power, and is the result of a condition of things wholly unlike anything which ever existed, or can possibly exist, in this country. Therefore, you are in the face of this position—that you must have a Second Chamber, and you have not anywhere an example of a better one than that of the House of Lords. I heartily concur in all the noble Lord has said as to the public interest involved in giving to this House all the strength and all the ability that can be obtained. I equally join him. in that pathetic reference to the mysterious destiny which has placed us inside a building where the doors only open in one direction; but I do not see that any advantage will be obtained by appointing a merely fishing Committee with no definite mission, with no clear Order of Reference to guide it. I should be very willing to consider any special proposals which the noble Earl, or anyone else, has to make; but if I may use language of the same kind as the noble Earl, I should say our Institutions were at this moment in the course of a somewhat rapid evolution; that changes are taking place not, perhaps, in their form, but in their substance, their relations, and their essential power; that these changes are affecting

  967
  the House of Commons far more powerfully than they are us, and that after a few years have passed very considerable differences will exist in the position and power and character of Parliament in this country; and unless some pressing need, unless some clear evil is shown, we should not take the present time of rapid transition to undertake gratuitous changes, the end of which no man can foresee.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I argued against the Motion of my noble Friend, in the form in which it stands, solely on the ground that I did not like to appoint a Committee without any specific view as to what was to come out of it, and I wished to know what sort of encouragement would be given from the opposite Benches as to any result coming from it. The noble Marquess argued very strongly against a general fishing Committee; but he has given a very strong opinion in favour of some limited creation of Life Peers. Now, that is a very important question, indeed, and one most worthy the attention of the Committee. I do not propose any definite plan with respect to it; but if my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) would mark in his Motion that this is one of the objects with which the Committee is to act, I should most cordially vote with him.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYthanked the noble Lords who had spoken for the complimentary references made by them to the speech with which he had introduced the debate. He was inclined to think that behind the opposition in words which the noble Marquess opposite thought it to be his duty to show, there was a but thinly-disguised sentiment in favour of the proposal before the House. He fully appreciated the difficulties of the noble Marquess, who led a Party which was not supposed to be so much in favour of change as the Liberal Party. He must confess, however, that he was very much disappointed with the reply made by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, From what had fallen from the noble Earl, it was only too clear that in this matter the Government had no fixed policy, and were content to hand over the guidance of the House to Her Majesty's Opposition. He made this remark in no carping spirit. He was a plain and humble individual, and he
  968
  took the language of the noble Earl to have a plain meaning. The noble Earl had, however, done one thing—he had robbed the proposal before the House of any Party character. The Committee which he proposed had been condemned as a "fishing" Committee, whatever that might mean, and because no indication was given of the objects which the Committee was to carry out. He thought, however, he had made it clear that it would be the duty of the Committee to suggest the best means of promoting the efficiency of the House; but he did not think that it was any part of his business to anticipate the resolutions that such a Committee might arrive at. He could not believe that there was any serious danger to the Constitution to be apprehended from such an inquiry, because he believed that that House was as safe in the hands of a Committee of its own Members as it would be in those of the House itself. The criticism which his proposal had provoked might have induced the belief that the Select Committee was not to be appointed by their Lordships, but, by those gentlemen who were good enough to spend their time in scattering explosives about the country. He reminded their Lordships, moreover, that if his Motion were agreed to, the Committee would not be nominated by him, but by some of their Lordships who were more experienced in these matters; and it was known how careful their Lordships were to select the proper Members. The noble Earl argued that his proposal for the appointment of a Committee to promote the efficiency of their Lordships' House indicated the existence of inefficiency, and was, therefore, a slight upon the House. That was an extraordinary interpretation to put upon his language. Now, he (the Earl of Rosebery) did not profess to be a master of English; but if he had wanted to say that there was any inefficiency in their Lordships' House he thought that he would have been able to say so. All that he said was, that however efficient their Lordships' House was it might be made still more efficient. The noble Earl had referred to Private Bill Legislation, and had expressed his willingness for a Committee to be appointed to consider that subject, and he had also said that he was willing to appoint a Committee to consider the question of Life Peerages. Both these

  969
  subjects would be considered by the Committee which he proposed to appoint, and, therefore, he did not see the ground there was for complaint that had been made against it. The noble Earl also said he was somewhat of a Conservative as regarded this House, and had become so by long residence. But at this moment the Ministry of which the noble Earl was a most distinguished ornament was bringing in one of the most drastic measures of Reform bearing upon the other House of Parliament, yet the noble Earl was not prepared to bring one-hundreth part of the reforming zeal evinced in that measure to bear upon their Lordships' House. The noble Earl had said that the question of the Quorum was a very small question; but that observation reminded him of the plea which was made in regard to the illegitimate child—that it was a very small one, and might very well be overlooked. He should feel it his duty to divide the House, and he should do so with the remark that the Division would show who were earnest, and zealous, and true in the cause of reform, and who were not.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I feel it to be absolutely necessary for me to say a few words after the second speech of the noble Earl. I do not think the noble Earl quite understands the position taken up by my noble Friend (Earl Granville). I may mention that the question of Life Peerages was fully and most ably discussed some years ago, when a very considerable majority of your Lordships decided against the system. Now, this House is not like the House of Commons, in whose composition there is from time to time a great change. The composition of this House remains practically the same, and in the absence of proof that a large majority in this House desire to change its composition, it would be idle to inquire into the subject of the institution of Life Peerages. I have always felt very doubtful about the expediency of Life Peerages myself; but if it is thought that by some such system you could introduce into the House some well-known men in commerce and trade, I should be very glad that the question should be considered. It is not by any means a safe thing to place the whole constitution of this House into the power of a Committee. I do not think it dignified for this House to discuss the reasons for its existence before a Committee, espe-
  970
  cially when nothing may come of an inquiry except a ridiculus mus. To throw such questions as that of the Quorum and that of Life Peerages—questions which affect in a great degree the reputation of the House—to throw them before a Select Committee, without any indication of the general feeling of the House, would be the worst step that could be taken. It is not fair to impute a want of reforming zeal to the Government, just because they cannot see their way to accept so wide and comprehensive an investigation as the noble Earl wants to embark upon. It would not be, I will not say Constitutional, but certainly not dignified for the House to engage in an inquiry so vague, and, at the same time, so little calculated to lead to practical results. I feel so strong a sympathy with my noble Friend in his main objects, that I entreat him not to place us in a position in which we shall be forced to vote against his proposal, and be made to appear hostile to all reform in the constitution of the House.
  EARL CAIRNS: Some years ago the question of Life Peerages was brought before the House, and no one then, thought it necessary to have a Select Committee. A Bill on the subject was brought in by Lord Russell, and was read a second time on the understanding that the character of the checks to be established should be fully considered in Committee. Some Amendments were accordingly inserted in Committee; but subsequently the House changed its mind, and rejected the Bill at the stage of Third Reading by a considerable majority.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsuggested that his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebury) should make Life Peerages a leading point in the Reference to the Committee. If that was done, it might be accepted by the Government, and might relieve Peers on that side from the embarrassment of dividing against the Leader of the House. He sincerely hoped it was still possible to find a modus vivendi.
  LORD BALFOURalso appealed to the noble Earl not to divide the House after the course which the debate had taken, inasmuch as a Division would be the cause of some considerable practical inconvenience. Many noble Lords sympathized largely with the speech of the noble Earl; and those who did not

  971
  sympathize with it must have admired it; but they did not like the form in which the subject of inquiry by the proposed Committee stood on the Paper. Even the noble Earl himself must admit that the terms of his Motion were extremely wide, and that a Committee might go on inquiring for a very long time without exhausting the scope of the Reference.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, a greater amount of sympathy with the Motion existed on the Government Benches than the noble Earl seemed to think. What his noble Friend objected to was a general, absolute, and unlimited inquiry, without any Reference to indicate the particular object to which it was to be directed. He was, however, authorized to say that if his noble Friend would put into his Motion a special reference to Life Peerages, so that it should appear that that was the subject which the proposed Committee was particularly to inquire into, the Government would support him.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, he did not think that the constitution of their Lordships' House ought to be referred to a Committee; but if such a proposal was made, it ought to be on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. If the noble Earl did not say, he implied that that House did not conduct its Business well. On the contrary, he maintained that the Business of their Lordships' House was well done; and if anything was wanting in that respect, it was owing to the late period at which important measures were brought before the House. If Her Majesty's Government would bring measures before the House at an earlier period, the case would be different. He was entirely opposed to the Motion.
  LORD TRUROurged that his noble Friend should give a specific Reference to the Committee by saying that it was to inquire into the expediency of creating Life Peerages. Some years ago the question was whether the Crown had the power to create them; but now the question would be different. He was of opinion, however, that after the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition, it would be both impolitic and inexpedient to agree to the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought whenever that House had to consider the question of Life Peerages
  972
  it should have two things—first, the proposition should be made on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; and, secondly, more than five minutes' Notice should be given of it. He should vote against the present proposal of the Government, not because he objected to Life Peerages, but because it was an extravagant violation of the ordinary practice of the House to throw it on the Table at such short Notice. It was evidently not part of the settled plan of the Government, and was only adopted by them when, after the debate, they had succeeded in finding out that some of their opponents were in favour of it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that, after the appeal of the Government, he had no objection to his Motion being so amended as to read—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means, by Life Peerages or otherwise, of promoting the efficiency of this House."
  That seemed to him to cover the ground.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he had determined not to vote at all; but after what had been stated by the noble Earl, he should feel it his duty distinctly to vote against the Motion.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwas understood to say that he had intented to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, because he thought the inquiry might have elicited a good deal of information; but after the change which was now proposed to be made, he could not vote with his noble Friend.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he thought that as an unjust outcry had been raised against their Lordships' House, they would do wisely to consent to the Motion, in order to see whether there were any means by which the efficiency of the House might be increased. Even if the proposed words were inserted, it would be open to the Committee to inquire into the whole subject opened by the noble Earl.
  EARL CAIRNSdid not think the noble Earl could amend his Motion without the permission of the House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was entirely in the hands of their Lordships. He, however, preferred his original Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was quite ready to move the Amendment which, had been suggested, if the noble

  973
  Earl thought it more regular for him to do so.
  Amendment moved, to insert after ("promoting") the words ("by life peerages or otherwise".)—(The Earl Granville.)
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 44; Not-Contents 86: Majority 42.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Carrington, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Hothfield, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Houghton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Derby, E.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Granville, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Morley, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Reay, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Ventry, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Milltown, E.

  Morton, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Powis, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Romney, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Zetland, E.

  Devon, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Haddington, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Jersey, E.

  Lathom, E. [Teller.]

  Gough, V.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Lovelace, E.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Hood, V.

  Manvers, E.

  Melville, V.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strathallan, V.

  974

  Templetown, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  North, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Bagot, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Cloncurry, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  de Ros, L.

  Digby, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Dinevor, L.

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

  Donington, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Strathnairn, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Truro, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Windsor, L.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD STRATHNAIRNexplained that he voted in the wrong Lobby; he intended to have voted against the Amendment.
  On Question, "That the original Motion be agreed to?" Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 77: Majority 39.

  CONTENTS.

  Grafton, D.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Hothfield, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Loftus, L. (M. Ely.)

  Minto, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Morley, E.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Reay, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.) [Teller.]

  Powerscourt, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Belper, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abereorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Annesley, E.

  975

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Bradford, E.

  Cairns, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Cowper, E.

  de Ros, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Digby, L.

  Devon, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Donington, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lathom, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Lovelace, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  Lucan, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Milltown, E. [Teller.]

  Lyveden, L.

  Morton, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Powis, E.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  North, L.

  Romney, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Saltoun, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarthy.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Gough, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hawarden, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hood, V.

  Melville, V.

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

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Strathallan, V.

  Tollemache, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Ventry, L.

  Wemyas, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Abinger, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Windsor, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative.

  LEGITIMACY DECLARATION ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858—Was presented by The Earl of ONSLOW; read 1a. (No. 134.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.