Sitting of 25 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Manchester Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Cheltenham Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Edinburgh Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made. Bill to be read the third time.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
Metropolitan Railway Bill; North Sussex Gas and Water Bill [Lords]; South Suburban Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. As amended, considered; to be road the third time.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Port of Manchester," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. John Burns; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 233.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered upen Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be road the third time upon Monday next.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).
  Mr. COMPTON RICKETT reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, to suit the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the Clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EAST INDIA AND CHINA (OPIUM TRADE).
  Petition from Greenock, for suppression to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Cotterstock; Easebourne; Fillongley; Huntingdon; Moresby (two); Sandown; Sowerby Bridge (two); and, Yarm; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Hucknall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions against; from Canterbury and Hayfield; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address May 22nd; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 183.]
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Reports, Statistics, etc., on Continuation Classes and Central Institutions (Scotland), 1904–5 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of May 11th, 1906, fixing the engineering establishment to be maintained in future by the Corporation of the Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of May 11th, 1906, exempting from re-measurement in this country Italian merchant ships, and revoking previous Orders in Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1895.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of May 11th, 1906, for giving effect to a Treaty concluded between the United Kingdom and the republic of Nicaragua, for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of May 11th, 1906, entitled (1) The Zanzibar Order in Council, 1906, and (2) The Federated Malay States Appeals Order in Council, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of May 11th, 1906, increasing the quantity of certain fireworks which may be kept on registered premises [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1889.
  Copies presented, of two Orders in Council of May 11th, 1906: (1) approving

  1561
  new denominations of standing weights of twenty pounds, ten pounds and five pounds and (2) fixing the fees to be taken by Inspectors of Weights and Measures on the verification and stamping of each of the above-named weights [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3597 to 3599 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JUDGE-ADVOCATE GENERAL (LETTERS PATENT).
  Copy presentod, of Letters Patent appointing Thomas Milvain, Esquire, K.C., to be Judge-Advocate General [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Telegraph Line to Skerries, Shetland— Contribution to Cost by Congested Districts Board.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Congested Districts Board will contribute towards the annual contribution required by the Post Office for a telegraph to Skerries, Shetland, provided the Post Office will agree to construct the same on the basis suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) On receiving a statement from the Postmaster-General as to the practicability and cost of the proposed extension, the Board will give the matter every consideration.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the necessity for increased postal and telegraphic communication at Skerries, Shetland; and if he will grant the people of the islands telegraphic facilities on the favourable terms recently suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided the Congested Districts Board of Scotland approve and will contribute towards the same.
  Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made into the matter,
  1562
  and will communicate the result to the hon. Member. If telegraph facilities can be afforded at a reasonable cost the reduced terms for guarantee recently introduced will apply.

  Damage by Motor Traffic—Suggested Tax.
  R. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has recently been drawn to the nuisance and damage caused by motor vehicles in districts on the outskirts of London and other large towns; and whether he can see his way to advising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose some further special tax on motor vehicles, the proceeds to be allocated to the local authorities in the districts particularly affected, as, for instance, the various districts between London and Brighton, in order that same may be spent on watering roads and compensating farmers and householders whose crops and property are being damaged.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received numerous complaints on this subject, and I have communicated them to the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, who are considering the matter. The Chancellor stated on the 21st instant †, in reply to the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division, that he thought the consideration of a suggestion similar to that made in the Question should be postponed until the Commission had presented their Report.

  Education Bill—Inefficient Voluntary Schools.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the President of the Board of Educaation whether, in the event of the Bill now before Parliament passing into law, any voluntary school being certified as inefficient, an opportunity would be granted it of becoming efficient; and if so, what time would be allowed; and furthermore whether any parent sending his or her children to such a school would enjoy immunity from prosecution.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board do not certify a school as inefficient.

  1563
  Every school now recognised as a voluntary public elementary school is in fact a certified efficient school. If such a school ceased under the Bill to be recognised as a public elementary school it would still remain a certified efficient school. The recognition of a school as a certified efficient school would not be withdrawn without due notice being given and ample opportunity afforded for defects to be remedied.

  Insanitary Houses in Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board's attention has been called to the correspondence that has taken place over the high death-rate of Belfast; whether houses have been built upon unsanitary sites without let or hindrance; and, if so, who is responsible; and if he will consider the advisability of ordering an inquiry into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The correspondence on this subject in the local Press has come under the notice of the Local Government Board, but no local representations have yet been received by the Board asking for their interference in the matter. The general suitability of building sites is a matter for the decision of the corporation. The Local Government Board have no functions except in cases in which sites are acquired by the corporation for housing of the working classes; in all such cases a local inquiry is held before a loan is sanctioned. The death-rate from all causes in Belfast is high, but the Board's medical inspector is in communication with the Public Health Committee in reference to the necessity of certain sanitary reforms. An inquiry does not appear to be necessary.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants— Application of John Haurihan.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any applications for a free grant on behalf of John Haurihan, an evicted tenant on the estate of Captain Townsend, Curradrinagh, Kilmichael, county Cork, who was reinstated last February and has since signed his purchase agreement; has it been represented to the Estates Commissioners that
  1564
  Haurihan requires this grant to improve his dwelling-house and out offices and to stock his farm; and will he state whether it is proposed to send an inspector to investigate this claim without delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have recently received an application on behalf of John Haurihan to the effect stated, and will have inquiry made into the case by one of their Inspectors.

  Belfast District Police Inspectors.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho can state when District Inspector Redmond, of Belfast, was appointed District Inspector, what previous experience he had of police duties; in what stations and during what periods he has served; and whether he can give similar particulars with regard to the other district inspectors of Belfast?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that District Inspector Redmond was appointed district inspector on November 1st, 1896. He was appointed to the constabulary as a cadet, and, like other cadets, had no previous experience of police work. He was transferred to Belfast on December 13th, 1905. He had previously served in the following stations: Ballyvaughan, from March 1st, 1897, to March 1st, 1898; Spiddal, from March 1st, 1898, to May 1st, 1902; Maryborough, from May 1st, 1902, to December 13th, 1905. I have forwarded to the hon. Member similar particulars as regards the five other district inspectors in Belfast.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  First Roport, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
Second Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and read.
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 181.]

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Heading read.
MR. SLOAN, in moving the Second Heading said he would like to ask hon. Members who had not heard this Bill discussed before to give him their attention and indulgence, as the measure applied entirely to Ireland. This was not a subject of religious views whatever. In fact, if the House would look at the names on the back of the Bill they would see that it represented all the different sections. The Select Committee which sat in regard to the question of the shortening of the hours for the sale of intoxicants, recommended nine o'clock closing on Saturday nights. In 1896 the Royal Commission endorsed the Select Committee's recommendations. There had been thousands of meetings in Ireland in favour of early Saturday closing, and entire Sunday closing, and the further extension of the distance required of the bona fide traveller. These reforms were not only necessary, but absolutely desirable in the interests of Ireland as a whole. It was quite true that there was opposition to the Bill. He supposed it was quite natural, but when they noted the quarter from which the opposition came, they would at once realise that it would be one of the greatest miracles of the age if that opposition did not exist—it came from the Licensed Victuallers' Association. The idea that the temperance reformers wanted to injure individuals might very well be cast on one side when he said they were trying to save the individual from the temptation to indulge in excessive drinking. The first two clauses of the Bill were identical with those in the Bill reported to the House by a Select Committee in 1888 and had been endorsed by the House on several other occasions. The Bill proposed to extend to the cities which were at present exempted the statute which prohibited the sale of liquor on Sunday, and to extend its provisions to the whole country. Sunday closing did not exist in the five cities in Ireland, and they found that where it did exist outside those cities it was not only a great boon to the people, but was generally so accepted by them. There had indeed been no serious complaint. The Bill proposed to amend the law in respect of the bona fide, traveller, by requiring that instead of going three
1566
miles to get a drink, he should not be justified in obtaining it unless he went four extra miles. The Select Committee reported that a great deal of excessive drinking on Saturday nights would be avoided by early closing. He did not expect the House would accept the proposition from him that he was not a bigoted temperance reformer. He had sat in the House since 1902, and he regretted to say that the idea of hon. Members of temperance advocates was not only erroneous, but extravagant. They were supposed to set up their opposition against individuals and not against the system. He had nothing at all to do with individuals engaged in the traffic. All he desired to do was to make it as easy as possible to do right, and as difficult as possible to do wrong. If public-houses were opened very early in the morning they ought not to remain open till eleven at night. To take two hours from those houses was a proposal that should meet with the support of all reasonable and right minded men. In 1903 when a similar Bill came before the House and passed the Second Reading, a Member for Dublin pointed out the necessity for regulating the clubs, and declared that if the temperance reformers would bring in a Bill to regulate the business of those institutions, they would do a great service. Well, to show their disposition to meet that desire, his hon. friend the Member for Mid. Antrim last year brought in a Bill regulating clubs, and he was glad to say that it received universal support of hon. Members, and, in fact, the support of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, it being a Bill which protected their interests. In 1897, a memorial was presented to the Lord - Lieutenant asking him to use his influence with the Government of the day to have the Bill passed. It was signed by thirteen Protestant bishops, sixteen Roman Catholic bishops, the moderator of the Presbyterian Synod, the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, fifteen of the nobility, twenty-one Members of Parliament, 1,036 clergymen, 1,018 magistrates, 291 doctors, 207 poor law guardians and town commissioners, 1,117 merchants and employers, and scores of public meetings had been held endorsing the provisions contained in the Bill, and asking the House to place it on the Statute Book for the purpose of making Ireland more sober than she was at the

1567
present time. Ireland was a very poor; country. His hon. friends were always pleading the poverty of the country. They were desirous of legislating for thepurpose of meeting the requirements of all the parties concerned, and he thought the Government in power were more disposed to meet certain sections in the country than the Government which some time since laid down the reins of office. It would be a good thing if they would reduce the drink bill, which was far larger than Ireland could afford. When they realised that 4,250,000 of people spent between £12,000,000 and £13,000,000 every year in drink, and that that expenditure came from the poorest of the poor in the country, they would quite understand why some of the poverty existed. He did not think any good came to temperance by exaggeration and he was not going to exaggerate the case; but he knew from personal observation in the country—north, south, east and west—that there was a universal opinion, from those in high social positions to the humblest in the land, that the opening of public-houses till eleven o'clock on Saturday nights was not an absolute necessity. The Licenced Victuallers' Association had sent out a circular stating that Saturdays were market days and that nine till eleven was the busiest time. In the Belfast shipbuilding yards the men were paid on Friday evenings, and they knew perfectly well that many of the workmen did not return to work till the Tuesday morning. If it was argued that men remained till eleven o'clock on Saturday night to spend the surplus money they had in drink he thought it was a very poor argument for the Licensed Victuallers' Association. As to the people who worked in mills, they were paid at twelve o clock on Saturday, and from twelve till nine o'clock was sufficient for the spending of any loose cash which might be necessary to gratify the tastes that these individuals had. As to the argument that it was market day, he might say for the information of hon. Members opposite that there was no such thing as marketing going on between nine and eleven o'clock at night. The persons who required to provide themselves with the necessaries of life for the week-end generally went out before nine o'clock, and if they did not go out till nine it was not because they were detained by their husbands being
1568
employed, it was simply carelessness, and it only required a little arranging to make purchases ealier. In 1882 a canvass was taken of the five cities with regard to the desirability of closing public - houses all day on Sunday. He would ask the House to pay attention to the figures which were given in that particular year in favour of Sunday closing. A vote had been taken in the large towns on the question of Sunday closing and he had the results. In Dublin there were 34,606 for and only 8,117 against; in Belfast 23,958 for and 3,912 against; in Cork 9,605 for and 1,870 against; in Limerick 5,604 for and 550 against and in Waterford 3,945 for and 290 against. These figures as far as the population was concerned proved beyond all doubt that the people were desirous that public-houses should be closed. Since his connection with the Bill he had had communications from all classes of people in Ireland who were in favour of it, and that day he had received telegrams from persons of all denominations, including Roman Catholics, desiring that the Bill should have the favourable consideration of the House, and that it should be made an Act of Parliament so that its restrictions could be carried out. He could not for the life of him understand why any Irish Member should object to the Bill. The hon. Member for East Clare made a memorable speech in 1903. He said he had travelled all over America and had answered many difficult questions, but he had never been able to reply to the charge of drunkenness in Ireland. They had to face the facts even though they told against their own country and countrymen, and there was no doubt that a great deal of poverty, hardship and distress in Ireland was due to over indulgence in alcoholic liquor. If hon. Members who opposed the Bill could show some justification for disregarding the will of the people in this respect and why restrictions should not be put on the sale of liquor he hoped they would do so on evidence which was incontrovertible. It was not merely a section or a trade he and his friends were representing. They spoke the mind of practically the whole country as to a measure that commended itself to the people. Great stress had been laid on the fact that in Scotland this policy

1569
had been pursued. He was not very conversant with the practice there, but he found from the annual report for 1897 that Captain Monro, the Government Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, said—
"The effect of the early closing on peace and order has been so very satisfactory that it is to be regretted that it was not made more general, or indeed, absolute, instead of permissive, as it would, while improving peace and order, also have relieved the police in large cities and burghs earlier in the night to attend to the very important duty of patrolling and watching."
The object of the present Bill was simply to take two hours off Saturday night, to include the five large towns he had referred to in the Sunday Closing Act, and to make the bona fide traveller or the man who desired liquor to go a reasonable distance to secure refreshment. He appealed to the House to consider it not as a political question, but as one affecting the good of the country. If he might say it without sarcasm they had now in power a temperance Government—a Government which favoured temperance reform for the whole of the United Kingdom, and which had a disposition to be favourable towards reasonable temperance legislation that would not inflict hardship or undue restrictions on the rights of fellow citizens. He asserted that these provisions in the Bill were not undue restrictions on the liberties of anyone. The measure was only a fair and honest attempt to meet the difficulties of the situation, and to reduce the evils of Saturday night drinking as far as possible. If hon. Members looked to the returns from Ireland they would find that since the Sunday Closing Act came into force there had been less drinking on Sundays. He need hardly appeal to the Labour Members, because they were almost all entirely in favour of temperance reform, and with them it was not a question of expediency but of practical politics. This was a question on which he had not the slightest doubt as to what the Government reply would be, but a favourable reply would not alter the situation as far as the practice in Ireland was concerned. The Bill purported to try and limit the dangers and temptations to which Irishmen were exposed. It might be said that they would go to shebeens or clubs if the Bill came into operation.
1570
He did not know why that should be so if the law was strictly carried out. He knew hundreds of men who went as a matter of course for company's sake into public-houses, and to suggest that when they left the public-houses at nine o'clock they would go to shebeens was an insult to them. The people who went to shebeens were not the people whom they were trying to legislate for. It was no argument to say that the provisions of the Bill would result in more shebeen drinking. He left the Bill in the hands of the House to deal with entirely on the grounds on which it was proposed. It was a non-Party Bill, it was not of a religious character, and he was glad to say that the entire Ulster Party were in its favour. Any opposition there was to it would come from the Nationalist Members. They had to meet the facts. He represented not a bigoted temperance Party but a great proportion of the opinion of the country, and if the House would accept the Bill it would go far towards alleviating the grievances that existed, it would reduce the enormous amount that was spent on drink every year, and it would tend to make the people of the country more happy and prosperous.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was proud to support the Second Reading of the Bill which had been proposed so eloquently, clearly and convincingly by his hon. friend the Member for South Belfast. It had been truly said that the Irish Members differed deeply and sharply on many questions, but there was one consolation that these collisions in debate between Irish Members frequently enlivened the proceedings in the House to hon. Members from England and Scotland and made political life more interesting. There were many vital issues on which the Irish Members differed; but, on the other hand, there were some on which they could largely agree, and he hoped that on the Bill now before the House they could find common ground. At all events, he could speak for the general feeling of the people in Ulster; and in behalf of the Unionist Party in that province he could say that they gave this Bill their hearty and loyal support. The main provisions of the Bill were

1571
that Sunday closing was to be applied to all the large towns in Ireland as it had been successfully applied in the small towns; and also that all public-houses should be closed at 9 o'clock on Saturday evenings. As to Sunday dosing, he had never been able to understand why the large towns had been specially left out of the operation of the Act of 1878, because it was just in these large towns, which attracted young people from the country, that special provisions were wanted to diminish the temptations of town life. He most heartily and cordially supported the Bill. If he did not do so he would be false to every pledge he had given at many elections, false to the great constituency which he represented, and false also to the conscientious convictions of the great majority of the people of Ulster.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months. He would like, however, to congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading on the moderation of his speech, especially when he knew that that hon. Gentleman was an out-and-out temperance man. He knew that if he had his own way he would not be content with closing the public-houses on Sunday and two hours earlier on Saturdays, but would deny the right of any person to have a glass of whiskey or a bottle of stout if he desired it at any time. The hon. Member was opposed to the sale of alcoholic liquors of any kind. He, himself, had lived for a very long time among the working classes of Ireland, and was as anxious as the hon. Member for South Belfast to promote sobriety and temperance; but he did not believe that this Bill would tend in that direction. He protested against the attempt to prevent the people from being able to obtain fresh and wholesome stimulants for their meals on Sundays. Such a thing could not take place in this country. His conviction was that if they closed the public-houses on Sunday the way would be opened up to many abuses, and that the Bill
1572
would turn out to be a curse. The hon. Member had said that he represented the opinion of Ulster in this matter. Now, he happened to be in Ulster a short time ago, and he was responsible in this House for a Bill to provide for the closing of the public-houses on one day of the year—Christmas Day—but the Government of the day insisted in putting into that Bill the bona-fide traveller clause; and he knew that a greater curse had never been imposed than by that clause. He was told that the suburban districts of the large towns were reeking with drunkenness on Christmas Day. [An HON. MEMBER: You did not include Bangor.] He did not know the meaning of the interruption; but he knew that the hon. Gentleman, the mover of this Bill, perpetuated in it the operation of the bona-fide travellers' clause. The hon. Gentle man had not the courage to remove it altogether. And they knew what the result would be in all the suburban districts of the great towns of Ireland if this Bill passed. Ireland had practically Sunday closing at the present time, with the exception of five large cities. He objected to Ireland being made the experimental ground for particular legislation. If English Members were anxious to see the people sober, why not first legislate in this direction for London and the other large cities in England? Let the English Members first show an example to Ireland. He had seen no reason to change his views from the time that he gave evidence before the Royal Commission as the representative of the working classes of Dublin, viz., that so long as the working classes in Ireland had not decent habitable houses, they must go for their recreation to the public-houses. The public - house was practically the poor man's club. He himself wanted to see the working men going to their homes at reasonable hours; but if the public - houses were closed on a Saturday night when a working man wanted to get a little fresh air and to obtain a little refreshment, he could not obtain it and he might resort to a place where the liquor and the conditions under which it was supplied would be a detriment to him. When this Bill was last before Parliament one

1573
of the Unionist papers in Dublin—the Irish Times—with whose opinions, of course, he did not always agree—in criticising the claim that early closing would diminish drunkenness, said—
"But is the Bill likely to achieve its object? We confess to a conviction that while the Bill, if it became law, will shut up the public houses at nine o'clock, it will open what will be infinitely more damageable to the working classes—a set of clubs which will be the most glorified and successful public-houses ever established."
He was sure that the mover of the Bill did not desire to see such a state of things as that existing in Ireland. Anyone who had experience of life in big cities must know that if such a state of things were set up it would be a menace to the public welfare. It had been said that there was no demand in the City of Dublin for this concession, because there was no marketing after nine o'clock. But anyone who had experience of Dublin knew that there was a great deal of marketing after that hour. [An HON. MEMBER: It is not necessary.] He lid not say it was necessary, but it was he custom of the people. No doubt he House would pass the Bill, but if they passed it did they think they would make drunkenness less prevalent in Ireland? He would give another quotation from the Irish Times—
"The vast, population of working men with Saturday night 'on their hands' and a free Sunday before them, will have a real interest in the formation of such establishments (meaning clubs), and we honestly confess that we shudder to think what will occur when the genuine working man's club comes into general existence and favour and has given up to it almost the entire of Saturday night as a monopoly."
It might be urged that such a state of things could not exist, but he knew of working men's clubs, and other clubs which were used in the name of working men's clubs, which had been kept open all night and where many abuses existed. Dealing with the inconvenience to the public the same journal said—
"Very great inconvenience will result to a large number of traders, publicans, grocers, restaurant and hotel owners, should that Bill become law, for if such parties are to carry on their business with safety, under the new regulations they will have almost to remodel their premise, and at serious cost maintain a vigilance hitherto unnecessary. If we were sure that anything like a corresponding proportionate benefit would accrue to the working
1574
classes we would not hesitate to say that such a consideration Would not be entertained for a moment, but we do not believe that the closing of the public-houses at nine o'clock on Saturday nights will bring forth the good results which the advocates of the measure anticipate."
It was an intolerable thing to think that he or any other working man walking along the streets and requiring refreshment should be debarred from getting it. What would be the result of this early closing? The liquor would be brought to the homes. Why should not a working man be able to ask his friends to come and have a drink? There was nothing wrong in it, but the effect of this Bill would be to bring liquor into the homes for consumption, and children would have a temptation set before them which was not a desirable one. Children should not have alcoholic Liquor brought under their notice until they came to the age of reason, and he objected to the houses of the working classes being made, as the Bill would have a tendency to make them, places where liquor would be brought on Saturday evenings and on Sundays. He thought that the hour of nine o'clock for closing in a large city was not reasonable. He also opposed the Bill on the ground that they were promised legislation of a kind which would enable them to look after such matters in their own country for themselves. He thought they should wait until that time came. This was not a matter with which Englishmen who did not understand them should deal. They should, he thought, begin at home in this matter and set Ireland an example. An hon. Member had spoken about America and said that Sunday Closing existed there. Well, he had been in that country. He knew that drink could be got there at all hours of the night and day. He was speaking of what he knew. He had been in New York, and when he came out of a printing office at half-past two in the morning he had been taken to a place where drink was obtained under conditions in which it was not desirable that it should be supplied in Ireland. That was not a condition of things which he desired to see in his country, as he thought that licensed houses should be under proper restraint and control. He did not think that this Bill would be the means of stopping drunkenness. He

1575
repudiated the statement that the Irishman was fond of drink, though no doubt he was fond of company. The working man must, however, have somewhere to go, and until they were able to give him some proper places o amusement and proper conditions of living all the legislation that was passed would not have the effect which the promoters of this Bill desired Therefore he was strongly opposed to the measure. In his constituency he had heard no word in support of the Bill except from temperance advocates zealous and earnest no doubt, but who would deny to any man the right to take any kind of liquor. Twenty years ago he represented the Trades Council as its President, and he was sent there to protest against the proposal to close public-houses in the City of Dublin. The working classes had not made any representation on the subject of this Bill, although he would not be so unfair as to say that he did not know that there were some working men in favour of it. But those were temperance men, and the man who drank with moderation would feel that it was a hardship if he were deprived of his refreshment. He had no interest in the sale of liquor, but he said that this Bill instead of being a blessing would prove a curse. Consequently he was bound to vote against it, and he begged to move that it be read a second time that day six months.
MR. CLANCYseconded the Motion for the rejection. He should like to say at the outset that although he had arrived at the same conclusion on other grounds he was from the first predisposed against efforts of legislation of this kind. The attitude, the language and the methods of procedure of those who put them forward seemed to be founded upon a desire to injure what was called "The trade." The things which were said and the allusions which were made from time to time predisposed him before he began to think of the merits of the question, against proposals of this kind. He was also not predisposed to legislation of this nature by the fact that some of the speeches implied an exceptional degree of drunken-
1576
ness on the part of the people of Ireland. It was quite inaccurate to say that the Irish people were an exceptionally drunken people, and he for one was not disposed to view favourably measures of this character put forward on that ground, and he desired publicly to protest against such assertions. Taking the English, the Irish, and the Scottish people in comparison, the Irish people were the most sober of the three. That was proved by statistics, and therefore it was not necessary for him to labour the point, as he did not think his assertion would be denied. This Bill had no authority in its favour. It was true that it had been read a second time more than once, but he observed that on only one occasion had a majority of Irish Members supported this proposal. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Or opposed it.] He believed the majority of Irish Members had in most instances voted against it, and he observed that the majorities in favour of the measure had been dwindling ones. In 1883 the majority was 156; in 1891 it was 146; in 1895 it was ninety-seven, and in 189 it was twenty-seven. In the latte year of the fifty-one Members who voted representing Ireland twenty-six voted for it and twenty-five against it. In fact, 1897 was the only occasion when the majority of Irish Members voted in favour of the Bill, and then the majority was only one.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that in 1903 there was a majority in favour of the measure not only of the Irish Members but of the Nationalist Members.
MR. CLANCYsaid no doubt the hon. Gentleman had verified the statement and therefore he would accept it at once, and would withdraw anything he had said to the contrary. He could not, however, understand what authority the promoters of this Bill had to bring it forward. The Royal Commission did not recommend the Bill. That body never recommended total Sunday closing, but said that although there might be a necessity for some further restriction n the hours of Sunday trading in the five exempted cities, public opinion did not justify total Sunday closing.

1577
That was the recommendation of the majority of the Royal Commission, but members of the temperance party did not seem to realise it. There was a very remarkable conference called a few months ago at the instance of the ex-chief inspector of the Irish Constabulary, Sir Andrew Reid. He suggested what he called a round table conference at which all parties were to be present, but from which the publican party were excluded, although they suggested they ought to be present and protested against their exclusion. That seemed to point to the fact that there was some hostility to the members of the trade; at any rate they were left outside the conference. That conference, after some considerable discussion in the public Press, met and recommended that in the five large cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, the licensing authority should upon the requisition of not less than one-fourth of the people who had a right to vote under the franchise take a plebiscite upon the question of closing on Sunday together, of reducing the hours, and of changing the present hours. They did not recommend absolute, total, closing in the five exempted cities, but rather local option. This was not a Bill for local option, but for the total closing of the licensed houses in the five exempted cities, and, therefore, he said the proposal was based upon no semblance of authority cither in the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing or the Report of Sir Andrew Reid's Conference. He confessed that although he had protested against the insinuation, and sometimes the open allegation that Ireland was a particularly drunken country, still too much drunkenness prevailed in Ireland. He would like to put an end to that, because of the moral and material evils it brought in its train. But the only question for him was what was the best way of proceeding to attain that end. He did not believe that these extreme and fanatical proposals would ever accomplish it. His hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill had alluded to the failure of these devices in Scotland, but he would like to put a few figures to the House to show how complete the failure of the Sunday Closing Act had been in its
1578
operation in Glasgow. In the year 1904–5 the average number of arrests on Sundays in the five exempted cities in Ireland was twenty-nine. The total arrests for the year were only 1,531. In Glasgow from May 1st to October 17th, less than six months, there were apprehended for drunkenness in the vicinity of clubs— that was very significant—2,047. In the same period 154 persons were charged with hawking spirits in the streets, and there were fifteen prosecutions against bogus clubs and shebeening. That was to say, 1,531 arrests were made in the whole year in the five exempted cities of Ireland, against 2,047 in Glasgow in six months, yet the total population of the five exempted cities was 892,422, and the population in Glasgow was 760,450. Therefore if the Glasgow case showed anything it showed that total closing on Sunday, under which no opportunity was given for drinking legitimately in public houses led to drunkenness instead of preventing it. Those figures had greatly impressed him, and he would like to hear the answer to them. He was not a fanatical opponent of the Bill. He would like to be convinced by argument, but so far as he could see there was no answer to that argument. He would like to know also why the Bill had been introduced in the face of the finding of Sir Andrew Reid's Conference. He wondered whether it was because the Conference did not carry out the wishes of the extreme temperance reformers of Ireland, but that they nevertheless hoped to enforce their ideals by the aid of English and Scottish votes. The temperance party were, he thought, unwise in the efforts they were making for extreme temperance legislation. Until the last few years they had never been able to carry any Bill except those in which they had the aid of the public at large. Every extreme temperance proposal had been defeated in the House, but, on the other hand, since 1900 by pursuing a sensible and middle course they had obtained several measures of very great advantage to the real cause of temperance. He desired to urge upon the temperance party the fact that the proposals of a Bill like this were calculated to retard rather than to advance temperance reform. Even this

1579
session an effort to legislate further in this direction had been defeated, and he was informed that an offer was made in that case to an authorised agent of the temperance party to permit the Drink Bill, as it was termed last year, to go through this House on certain conditions. Why was that offer rejected? He would like to know that, because in his opinion the real object that was animating the so-called temperance reformers would be found to be not what they said but some unaccountable desire to be revenged on a trade with which they did not agree. These proposals were not likely to effect their end. His own view was that another road must be pursued, as another road had been found to be necessary in the State of Maine, where total prohibition was commenced. It was not so long ago since drunkenness was rife among the wealthy people of this country and of Scotland. He remembered reading in Dean Ramsay's memoirs that 100 years ago the Beach and the Bar went on circuit drunk and remained drunk until they returned, and that they kept an official whose business it was to loosen their neckties when they fell under the table. The Lord-Advocate was informed sufficiently to know that that was no invention of his own. What put an end to that state of things? Not Sunday closing, not Saturday closing, not shortening the hours in which drink might be obtained. It was because drunkenness became the reverse of repectable, so that it became a social crime to be drunk, and employers of labour refused to employ people of whose sobriety they had not the strongest guarantee. It was by some similar revulsion of feeling that the prevention of drunkenness in the humbler classes must be brought about. He thought it was a mistake to begin this experiment by making these extreme proposals apply to Ireland. If at all, why should they not begin with the centre of the Empire? Would such a proposal be carried for London, and if it was carried how would it work? He did not believe there was a single Member of the House who would guarantee that there would be less drunkenness or more self-righteousness if such a Bill were carried, nor could such a Bill be carried out in any of the large cities. And when they had, as in Dublin,
1580
a large part of the Sunday already closed against the consumption of drink on licensed premises, and when they had in the country districts licensed houses closed altogether on Sundays, he thought hon. Gentlemen before they voted for such a Bill as this against the weight of public opinion ought seriously to consider whether or not they had not with the present laws gone far enough in that direction. When temperance reformers said that such a Bill would have great effect in preventing the consumption of alcoholic liquor, that in some places it would decrease it by three-fourths and in others shop it altogether, the meaning of that was to his mind was that it would take away the trade of the publican. Although there might not be any harm in taking away the trade of the publican he did say that to deprive any man of his business without compensation was nothing more nor less than robbery. He reminded the House that in this matter the Irish publican stood in a much stronger position than the publican of England The law of England was that a licence could be refused any year. In Ireland it could not be refused. A legal decision existed in Ireland by which a licence must be renewed from year to year unless the applicant was a man of bad character. The effect of legislation of this character would be to deprive these people of their property which Parliament had given them a right to retain, and to do that was simple robbery, He begged to second the rejection of the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Nannetti.)
Question proposed, "That the word 1 now' stand part of the Question."
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that before he proceeded to deal with the question itself, he desired to say a word with regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for North Dublin, that the publicans of Dublin were not allowed to take part in a conference held in that city to consider the question to which the Bill referred. He (Mr. Russell) wished to inform the hon. Member that he had himself felt

1581
so strongly that the publicans ought to have been summoned and given a part in that conference that he took no part in it himself, so that the hon. Gentleman and he did not differ on that point. He proposed to deal first with what might be called the history of this question. The Irish Sunday Closing Act was passed in 1878 after a fierce and prolonged struggle in the country and in that House. The Tory Party, which was then in power, was by no means favourable to legislation of this character, and during the progress of the Bill through Committee five large towns were exempted from its provisions. So that as the Act passed, Sunday closing was applied to the whole of the country except those five large towns. It was passed provisionally for five years. At the end of those years a proposal was made to renew the Act, and the friends of Sunday closing in the House then sought to include the five towns in the Bill. It was quite true that they had always been defeated in the House in making that proposal; but he thought the House ought to be told what had actually taken place. The Bill had not been defeated because the House had been opposed to its principle, but by the forms of the House which had always prevented the desire of the House being carried into effect. In the year 1888 the question came up again. For the first time he then moved and carried the Second Reading of a Bill to close public-houses on Saturdays at nine o'clock. That Bill and the Sunday Closing Bill were sent upstairs to a Select Committee presided over by the then Attorney-General for Ireland. That was a representative Committee, and it reported in favour of total Sunday closing in all Ireland, and in favour of early closing on Saturday. The Bill was defeated by time and by nothing else. What did the late Prime Minister say next session when it was brought in again? He had been strongly impressed by the agitation in the country when he was Chief Secretary, and when the Bill came up for discussion he said he had been told by Mr. Justice Madden, the Chairman of the Committee, that there was something approaching unanimity of public opinion in Ireland in favour of this legislation and
1582
under those circumstances he should support again in the lobby the opinion which both officially and unofficially he had held and supported for some years. That was the position taken up by the late Prime Minister, who had learned his lesson during the five years he had been Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was asked upon what authority the Bill was based. There was the authority of the Select Committee of that House. They had the Bill practically as it stood to-day sent down from Mr. Justice Madden's Select Committee. And they had the decision of the House in agreeing to the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford on May 12th, 1897, said that he had always been a strenuous supporter of the principle of Sunday Closing, but he was not clear that it would be practicable or wise to have total closing on Sundays in the large towns. The hon. and learned Member had also said that he did not know whether the present hours of opening were too long, though probably a case for shortening these hours might be made out, but if such a case were to be made out it must be done before the Licensing Commission, and the Bill should be postponed until Lord Peel's Commission reported. The Commission had now reported, and where did they stand? Let them take the constitution of that Commission. Upon it there were seven representatives of the trade, avowedly appointed as such, and a certain number of temperance representatives, and then there was a balancing number of what were called neutrals. That Commission heard the whole evidence from Ireland, including the evidence of police, distinguished citizens, bishops and priests. What did they report? There was a majority and a minority report. The minority, headed by Lord Peel, reported in favour of what was proposed in the Bill now before the House. The majority report was in favour of ten o'clock closing on Saturday and of lengthening the hours of closing on Sundays in the five large towns. They politely called bona fide travellers a nuisance and favoured legislation for amending that part of the law. He was asked what authority this Bill had. It was founded upon the report of a Select Committee of this

1583
House, upon decisions on the Second Reading and upon Lord Peel's Commission, because whatever section of the Report they considered it would be seen chat they were not satisfied with the exist ingstate of things. That was the authority upon which this Bill was based. They did not, however, stand upon that authority alone. What about public opinion in Ireland? Hon. Members said there was no authority for this Bill, but he would like to ask what authority was there for the opposition to this measure except that which emanated from the licensed liquor trade? Was there a bishop from any part of Ireland against the Bill? Was there a Resolution against it from any public body whatever?
AN HON. MEMBER: Can the hon. Gentleman show a single Resolution in favour of the Bill from any public body in Ireland?
MR. T. W. RUSSELLreplied that he had not got any such Resolution, but that was not because the Bill was not favoured by public bodies in Ireland, but because it was not known that the Bill was coming on that day. It was down third on the Order Paper, but the two Bills which held places before it had been withdrawn. He could say without hesitation that he had never known during his forty years experience of public life in Ireland a single body, apart from the licensed liquor trade, that was prepared to fight this question.
MR. NANNETTI: There have been public meetings against it in Phœnix Park and also Resolutions passed by the Trades Councils in Dublin.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that hon. Members opposite in opposing this Bill had no large consensus of public opinion behind them except that which was engineered by the licensed liquor trade. The conference in Dublin which had been referred to consisted of delegates from different parts of Ireland, and they were all convinced that if nothing was done in this matter the drink traffic would do very serious damage to Ireland. He had never said that the people of Ireland drank more than the people
1584
of England or Scotland, because per head of the population they drank less. It should not, however, be overlooked that the people of England and Scotland drank out of their abundance whilst the people of Ireland drank out of their poverty. Emigration was depleting the population in Ireland and lunacy was increasing at a pace that was causing thoughtful men to tremble. What was the testimony of Dr. Connolly Worman, the resident medical superintendent of the Richmond Asylum? He said that but for delirium tremens there would be no necessity to enlarge that asylum. The drink system was undermining and aggravating every evil in Ireland. Because a powerful trade was organised in every Irish town and village, were the representatives of the Irish people to stand by and do nothing? Hon. Members opposite professed that they were entirely in favour of temperance, but the difference between those who were temperance men and those who said they were was that the former tried to do something and the latter opposed everything. Let them take the Temperance Conference in Dublin Would any hon. Member say that this was a question upon which the Churches in Ireland had no right to intervene? Were they ready to take up that position? This was pre-eminently a question for the Churches, because it was largely a question of morals. Drink was degrading and ruining the people of Ireland. What was the position of the Churches? Could any Nationalist Member get up and say that they had the sanction of a single bishop, priest, or minister in the whole of Ireland for opposing temperance legislation? They could not say that. Archbishop Walsh and Cardinal Logue hesitated about supporting legislation of this kind in the past until the clubs could be controlled, but both those distinguished prelates now took the ground that as clubs were under control, legislation was necessary to deal with this appalling evil. They had been told that they ought to wait until there was a Legislature in Ireland to deal with this question. Could Nationalist Members point to another single question upon which they had said that? In regard to land and labour and education,

1585
they were ready to trust this House, but immediately they came to the liquor traffic they desired to leave it to a Home Rule Parliament. Were hon. Members serious in makng that proposal? They could not pick and choose and say one question was to be settled in Ireland and all other questions in this Parliament. They had behind them the weight of the whole of the churches in Ireland in favour of this proposal. Would Members opposite affirm that the Gaelic League was in favour of the drink party? He was glad to say that that League was one of the strongest temperance influences in Ireland and it was making a powerful impression upon the people. They had all the moral influences on their side in Ireland, and the only people against them were a band of drink-sellers fighting for their own hand and their own interest. Was this Bill a reasonable measure? There had been a great change of opinion in Ireland. The bona-fide traveller had become such a stupendous nuisance that people everywhere were prepared to abolish him right away without any consideration whatever. Men who disliked Sunday closing had, in view of the great nuisance of the bona-fide traveller, come to demand this. All round the large towns Sunday was turned into a pandemonium by the bona fide traveller. Property in Black Rock, Dundrum, and all the suburbs had been depreciated, and the effect of that pandemonium had been to make a great impression. People were in favour of this proposal who were not in favour of it when the fight took place in 1878. But since then the trade had organised, and in every village and town in Ireland there was a trade political association which openly asserted that its trade was its politics. They came at the last election to him of all men in the world. They desired to pledge him against all this. Well, he need not tell the House what answer he gave. At all events other men gave way, and it was no secret that that trade organisation was coercing many politicians in Ireland to do that which they did not wish to do. That showed the change that had taken place in public opinion. There were two kinds of opposition to this Bill. There
1586
was the kind of opposition which said boldly that such legislation tyrannical, and they would not have it. But there were also other men who said the Bill went too far. So far as the first class was concerned, he believed it was the duty of the State to make it easy to do right. At 9 o'clock on Saturday night the marketing in those big towns was practically over, and they did not think it was a proper preparation for the Sunday to have those orgies. Lord Peel's Committee had recommended that the hours should be shortened. To close the public-houses only at ten would be a great step forward. But those who took a stand against the Bill, because it was trying on Ireland what would not be tolerated in England and Scotland, could not be listened to. And though most of their opponents were prepared to say that they were willing to treat with them on the question of hours, that was a matter for Committee and not for opposition on Second Reading. If he might go back to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, why did he persist in saying that he objected to Ireland being experimented on? Scotland had had this legislation for fifty years. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: With what result?] That was not the question. He was dealing with the question of an experiment, and they were not making an experiment on Ireland that had not been tried in other parts of the King's dominions. And whatever might be the result, one strong fact stood out, that there had never been from either Scotland or Wales a Member bold enough to propose to repeal those Acts. He thought that spoke very strongly for the actual result. That disposed of the argument about an experiment. Then the hon. Member for College Green had said the working men had no habitable home to go to. Did the hon. Member imagine that a man guzzling and drinking in a public-house up to eleven o'clock on Saturday night was the way to secure a habitable home either for himself or his family? Did not the hon. Member know that thousands of homes might be happy but for this very guzzling and drinking? Then the hon. Member said he wished the working men to have opportunities of obtaining fresh air. But what kind of atmosphere

1587
was found in a public-house from nine to eleven o'clock on a Saturday night? Would his hon. friend consider the situation? Both his hon. friend and he knew something about this subject. They knew what they were talking about. He had gone on tours of inspection. Fresh air! Why, the atmosphere of these places was perfectly fœtid. It was not at such places that a workman or any other man would get fresh air, and the moral atmosphere was as bad as the physical.
MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid his point was that if a working man wished to take a walk on Saturday night he was entitled to get refreshments if he wanted them.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether his hon. friend thought that a workman could not take a walk without tumbling into a public-house between nine and eleven o'clock on a Saturday night. His hon. friend had quoted the Irish Times. That might have been very well for the House of Commons if no Irish Members had been here. The Irish Times was until quite recently the property of Sir John Arnott, one of the biggest brewers in Ireland, and even now that it was a limited company he was the largest shareholder. Why did not the hon. Gentleman quote the Daily Express, which was owned by Lord Ardilaun? What was the use of quoting those who had a vested interest in the perpetuation of this iniquitous business? His hon. friend must really re-cast his arguments. They had done duty before, and were out of date. Let them take the question of clubs. What was the use of quoting the Irish Times of a date prior to the passing of the Clubs Act about a nuisance that had been dealt with by law and abated? His hon. friend must really get up this question afresh. These old arguments; would not do. They had been blown out of the water dozens of times. The hon. Member for North Dublin was wiser. His arguments were of a totally different character, though equally fallacious. The hon. Member for North Dublin thought that they could not possibly shorten the hours of public-houses in Ireland on Sundays or other days without giving the publican com-
1588
pensation, and he pointed out with; perfect truth that the Clitheroe decision in Ireland had given the publican a vested interest which he had not before possessed. But it was an entirely new I doctrine in this House or anywhere else to say that a trade which existed for the public convenience, and the hours of which were regulated by Parliament, was not subject to change or alteration. That was a perfectly impossible doctrine to propound in this House, and therefore as in the past so in the future, if Parliament thought it necessary to reduce the hours on Saturday or Sunday the publican's claim to compensation was absolutely non-existent. They were dealing with a new House of Commons, and I he ventured to think they were dealing I with a new House that would not be unfriendly. He had not the slightest connection with any temperance organisation in Ireland, and he was not speaking in their name or for them; but he was speaking as one who had been in this fight for forty years, and he was fulfilling the mandate of a great constituency I in dealing with this question as he was to-day. He appealed to this House to save his hon. friends opposite from themselves. Just let them imagine what drink was doing in Ireland and everywhere else. Let them think of the poor farmers of Ireland on market day, which generally was Saturday. They went into the towns, and sold their little produce, afterwards meeting one friend after another and spending the money they could not afford in the public-house—money that ought to go to their homes and wives, and the welfare of their children. Crime often followed as a result. He appealed to this House again for a chance for this Bill. He pleaded with the House of Commons to-day to give them a chance. He had fought for land reform and other reforms for Ireland quite as heartily as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he said unhesitatingly now that if the publican was to get what the landlord had been deprived of, if the benefit of the reduction of rent was to go to the public-house and not to the home of the farmer, then land reform might be looked on from different standpoints. He had great hopes for Ireland, for a new life was stirring this whole country. The Gaelic League of which he

1589
had spoken was bringing that, life to fruition. He implored the House to give Ireland a helping hand to-day to get rid of these dreadful temptations against which the strongest human nature was often powerless, and against which such human nature as existed in Ireland, free, generous and hospitable, was wholly unable to cope.
MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone was not so much an argument for Sunday closing and early closing on Saturday night as an argument for the total prohibition of the sale of drink in all houses in Ireland; and the same might be said of all the arguments advanced in support of the Bill. If Irishmen were so weak that they could not resist the temptation offered by the open door of a public-house at nine or ten o'clock, then the evil and the danger were just the same at two, three or six o'clock in the day. If Parliament made up its mind that there must be total prohibition, not in Ireland alone, but in the whole of the United Kingdom, they would t have a direct issue to face. He doubted very much if Parliament was going to face that issue in the near future. What was the justification for legislation of this kind? It was simply that drink was abused, and that some men became drunk, but he failed to see in that an argument for exceptional legislation. From beginning to end of the discussion to-day there had not been a single allegation that drunkenness was on the increase in Ireland, or that the condition of things in the towns and rural districts of Ireland was exceptional as compared with the towns and rural districts of other parts of the United Kingdom. Even though the majority of the people in the towns of Ireland were in favour of this legislation, he would regard it as an act of tyranny on the part of the majority to prevent a man from taking the refreshment he was entitled to take so long as he did not abuse the privilege. Legislation for the regulation of the liquor traffic had gone so far that in Dublin the time of the police was largely occupied, not merely in dealing with cases of drunkenness, but in making visits practically every evening to licensed premises. The way in which the law
1590
was carried out was in itself a very strong inducement to the people in Ireland not to put more power in the hands of the police. The law in this matter, which was originally intended to be useful, had become oppressive. He had been a teetotaler all his life, but he did not see why this attempt should be made by Act of Parliament to impose oppressive terms on those who did not agree with what was now proposed. Temperance societies were making enormous progress in Ireland, but it would appear that those who preached temperance were not content with the excellent work which was being done. If working men living in the large towns wanted drink on Sunday they could get it by sending out for it. Under this Bill it would be necessary to get it in the night before, and if that was done the chances were that it would not last till Sunday. This would place working men at a disadvantage as compared with people who lived in opulence and had cellars of their own. The hon. Member for South Belfast had stated that working men who were paid on Friday did not return to work in some cases till Tuesday. That seemed to be an argument in favour of closing public-houses, not only on Sunday, but on Monday morning as well. It was true that some workers were paid on Friday night, or early on Saturday, but there were a large number of people in the city of Dublin who could not do their marketing till after eight o'clock on Saturday. If it was the fact that drunkenness was largely diminishing, why should these people be subjected to the inconvenience which this Bill would impose? He believed in advancing the cause of temperance by appealing to the reason and commonsense of the people, and he believed further that certain legislative efforts were calculated to make the cause of temperance distasteful and objectionable to those who desired to see an improvement brought about in the habits of the people.
MR. FETHERSTONHAUGHsaid he trusted he would find himself one of the majority in favour of this Bill. He considered it a very good measure. There was hardly a line in it which would require amendment or improvement in Committee.

1591
The hon. Member for Dublin Harbour appeared to consider that working men would be. greatly wronged by the deprivation of the privilege of Sunday drinking in the five excepted cities. He had not heard that the working men in the other parts of Ireland had objected to Sunday closing. In the other towns, and in the rural parts of Ireland, so far as his observation had gone, Sunday closing had been a very great success. Sunday was now all over the country a day of sobriety and tranquillity, except in the excepted cities. As a citizen of Dublin, one of the excepted cities, he ardently wished to see that Sunday tranquillity extended to the metropolis, and also to the other excepted cities. The hon. Member for Dublin County North had suggested that it would be unjust to deprive the Irish publican of his Sunday trade without compensation. Owing to a decision, the correctness of which was the subject of some doubt, the Irish publican had got into a position which the English publicans did not enjoy. By the decision in Clitheroe's case it was held that an Irish publican was entitled to a renewal of his licence unless he had been guilty of some misconduct in the carrying on of his business, or unless some exception could be taken to his character. That had come to be the accepted law in Ireland, because no one had taken an appeal to the House of Lords. He believed that if an appeal were taken to the House of Lords, the law in Ireland would be restored to uniformity with that of England on the basis of the judgment given in the case of Sharp v. Wakefield. Assuming, however, that the Irish publicans were in a better position than the English publicans was it not rather late in the day to suggest that the Irish publicans could not be deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation, when they considered that the publicans not in the excepted cities had been deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation? If they could be deprived of their Sunday trade without compensation, why should the publicans, in the five excepted cities, be treated differently from those all over the country? The liquor trade was highly organised and powerful, with its headquarters in Dublin, and it was always able to secure a certain amount
1592
of support, owing to that organisation, from some of the Members for the City of Dublin. But Members from other parts of Ireland, who were able to express the views of their constituents, and not the views of the Licensed Victuallers Association, were practically unanimous in favour of the provision to get rid of the exemption of the five cities. He thought the other part of the Bill which provided for the restricting of the, trade on Saturday night to nine o'clock was even more beneficial because it was a more general proposal. He had heard the argument as to the convenience of working men engaged in marketing. There was nothing in the Bill which proposed to close the shops of butchers, bakers, and other trademen where in the ordinary sense marketing was usually carried on. He thought it would be a very good thing indeed for all classes, if it was necessary to do marketing late on Saturday night, that they should do it in shops which did not lend themselves to the sale of drink. He had received a communication stating that there were a number of shops where licences were held which would be seriously inconvenienced in their business, outside of the drink trade, if this Bill were passed. He knew that from a mistaken policy, in the past, licences had been granted to shops where hardware, agricultural implements, or drapery goods were sold in country towns. He thought it would be one of the most beneficial effects of the Bill if it hampered these shops in their trade. Of all classes of public-houses those were the most dangerous, because people went in, it might be, for the purpose of buying drapery goods, but, finding a spirit counter in the place, they were tempted to drink. The objection formerly taken to Sunday closing, and to the restriction of the hours of public houses on Saturday, that clubs would be multiplied, did not now hold good, for all clubs where drink was sold in Ireland had now to be registered and licensed. It was very well known that if a club was carried on merely for the purpose of supplying drink, the justices would not renew the licence. The third portion of the Bill dealt with the bona fide traveller. A bona fide traveller was understood to be one who drank to travel, but in practice

1593
he was found to be one who travelled to drink. The limit of three miles seemed to be absolutely absurd in these days of bicycles and motor cars. The result of the three mile limit had been, as the Lord Mayor of Dublin had pointed out, to cause great inconvenience and demoralisation in little towns near the large excepted cities. The present Bill made a very beneficial change in increasing the limit to seven miles. It also contained the even more useful provision of providing a sort of test as to whether a person was really taking a refreshment of an alcoholic character for the purpose of travelling, or merely for the sake of drinking. It was proposed that no person claiming to be a bona fide traveller "shall be served with intoxicating liquor unless he at the same time orders and pays for a meal." These words might require amending in Committee, for some might consider that a few biscuits constituted a meal. This proposal might he amended by providing that the value of the meal ordered should at least be equal to the value of the drink ordered. This Bill would, he hoped, deliver Dublin from the abominable drinking that went on, and enable working men to carry home a greater proportion of their wages on Saturday when they were not tempted at night to go into the gin palaces of the city. The hon. Member for Dublin County North had referred to the case of Glasgow, but it was probable that a great deal of drunkenness there arose from "bona fide travellers" going out by tram cars from the area where the sale of drink was forbidden to places where they could get a quantity of drink. Then they were arrested for drunkenness. If the law in Scotland were amended that phase of Sunday drinking would soon pass away. The passing of this Bill would have the effect of making places in the neighbourhood of the large towns of Ireland as sober and tranquil on Sunday as other parts of the country.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he strongly supported the Motion for the rejection of this measure. If anything were required to convince him of the correctness of that attitude, it would the eloquent but inconclusive speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He
1594
indignantly and respectfully repudiated the suggestion of the mover of the Bill that anybody who opposed it did so in the interest of the licensed victuallers. He might as well suggest that those who supported the Bill were acting in the interest of the manufacturers of lemonade and ginger-pop, and other equally unwholesome and indigestible beverages. He regarded the Bill as a most lamentable illustration of the worst form of class legislation. He might characterise the Bill as a drunkards' Bill, because so far from minimising the evils of intemperance it presented every characteristic that would tend in the opposite direction. The arguments of the hon. Member for South Tyrone in favour of the Bill had fully convinced him of the soundness of his opposition to it. That hon. Member had ascribed the increase of lunacy, emigration, and consumption to drink. He would suggest to the House that if they wanted to diminish lunacy they should hesitate to pass legislation, which would make Ireland a country that, especially on Sunday, would be calculated to drive nine men in every ten out of their minds. In regard to emigration he would suggest that to prevent a man after walking seven miles getting a glass of beer, would be to justify such a man in seeking the more hospitable shores of a more civilised country. As to consumption, would it tend to lessen this scourge if men were discouraged from seeking fresh air on Sundays? The hon. Member for South Tyrone had also said that this matter was preeminently for the churches and for morals. He entirely agreed, and consequently maintained that it was not a question for this House. The hon. Gentleman stated that no bishop, priest, or minister in Ireland was opposed to the Bill, but the explanation might be that their churches and temples—he made this suggestion without disrespect—would be less deserted than they were now if people were prevented from taking their country walks and their bicycle rides. What the sponsors of this Bill wanted to do was to say that no man should have intoxicating liquor. Some day, if this sort of legislation became fashonable, the House of Commons would say that no man would be allowed to eat meat—which to his mind was a practice

1595
more degrading than drinking alcohol and led to greater crime. He made himself responsible for the statement that wherever this coercive legislation had been tried, it had never yet succeeded in diminishing the total consumption of alcoholic drinks. They had heard a great deal of the prohibition State of Maine; but there was the story of an English traveller who was going through that State, and asked a station-master if there was not one place in the whole of the State where he could get a drink. The station-master, pointing to a little house, replied—
"That is the only place where you cannot get it."
The real spirit of the sponsors of this measure was that displayed in a conversation between Herbert Spencer and a Mohammedan as to what was the greatest sin in the world. The Mohammedan said the drink habit. Herbert Spencer asked his Mohammedan friend whether murder, outrage, and other crimes were not sins, to which the Mohammedan replied that he believed they might be, but that God was merciful! As to the Bill itself, the first provision, for practical purposes, decided that the public-houses were to be closed on Sundays. But why on Sunday? Because Sunday was the only day on which the working man—and this Bill did not interfere with the liberties of any other class—had time to visit his club, and it was infamous that it should be his only club. Then another clause provided that the public-houses were to be closed at nine o'clock on Saturday evenings. Why nine o'clock? Why not in the afternoon? It was admitted that many working men in Ireland as well as in England were not in a position to do their marketing before nine o'clock; and surely they ought to have the opportunity when shopping with their wives to go into a public -house and have some refreshment. Did the hon. member for South Tyrone suggest that by nine o'clock the working man had got as much drink as was good for him? Some hon. Members had spoken of the poor barmen who went to work at seven o'clock in the morning and were kept at it until eleven o'clock at night or after. Well, if the barmen were public spirited they would join their trade union,
1596
and if there was not a barmen's trade union, they should start one. Then he came to the clause about bona fide travelers and he was astounded and alarmed that any Member of Parliament should say that that provision was reasonable. For a bona fide traveller could not get a glass of beer—except under what conditions? First of all, he must prove that he had walked seven miles—there was no direction in the Bill as to how the seven miles were to be measured—and then he must write his name in the book which was to be kept open for all time to the inspection of the police and the magistrates. Talk about the Crimes Act in Ireland There had never been any provision in any Cœrcion Acts so drastic, so retrograde, so barbarous as that. No man was to have an honest glass of beer without not only walking fourteen miles, but being branded as a semi-criminal—as a man who had transgressed the moral land of the law. He ventured to maintain that that was a proposal which even this House of Commons, with all its virtue, would hesitate to place on the Statute Book. However, that was not all. Even if a man had proved that he had travelled seven miles, and had signed his name, and shown his vaccination marks, and all the rest of it, he must, whether he wanted it or not, "partake of a meal." There was no interpretation clause in the Bill as to what was a meal. He asked whether it was conducive to public honesty that they should make a thirsty man pretend, that he was hungry and go through the farce of purchasing some hybrid burlesque of a meal in order to get a drink? This Bill was a burlesque of social legislation.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Your speech is a burlesque.
MR. CREAN: Mr. Speaker, is it in order when one hon. Member is addressing the House for another hon.. Member to say that his speech is a burlesque?
MR. SPEAKER: That depends, I think, upon the spirit in which the phrase is used.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The hon. Member, in dealing with a question which many of us regard as a very serious

1597
matter, described it as a burlesque. I described his speech as a burlesque of a speech—a very bad burlesque.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that a bad burlesque meant something that was too serious. He was as profoundly serious in this matter as the hon. Member for East Clare; but everything in this world had its comic aspect. He was almost a teetotaller himself, had had a great deal to do with working men, and was as profoundly interested in checking the drink evil as anyone else. He considered that this Bill would tend to create evils which its supporters did not realise. He contended seriously that this kind of legislation would have the tendency to drive men to drink indoors. It was no good driving an evil out of sight, and thinking that it had been done away with. He insisted that no legislation of this kind had ever resulted in the less consumption of alcoholic drink. It was class legislation in its worst form; it was contrary to every principle of freedom and liberty for the individual which he understood to be the foundation of the political creed which he was returned to this House to support.
MR. GORDONsaid that all the Unionist and he thought almost all the Nationalist constituencies in Ireland were in favour of this Bill. The arguments they had heard to-day against the Bill seemed to him to be arguments in favour of prohibiting and interfering with the drink traffic altogether. The whole history of legislation in connection with the drink traffic had been one of control and restriction, and of control and restriction in the interests of the public—not in the interests of the trade—whose interests were far more important to be considered by the House of Commons than those of any trade however great. There was one great matter to be considered in dealing with this subject. The House of Commons had by legislation approved of the principle of closing public-houses in Ireland on Sunday, and the only bearing of this Bill was to extend its provisions to the towns exempted at that time. Large towns such as Derry and others were not exempted, and no one who represented those towns or was interested in their welfare had come to that House and
1598
asked the extension of the exemption which was given to the other five cities in Ireland. They had in Ireland this state of affairs. Parliament had said that it was the right thing to prohibit the sale of drink in Ireland on Sunday and had merely exempted these cities because they desired to wait to see how it worked out. They in Ireland had had an opportunity of comparing the two systems, and he was expressing, the opinions of the vast majority of the Irish people when he said that this exemption should be withdrawn, and that the time had arrived when those cities should be brought into line with the rest of the country. They would suffer no hardship from this, and he was surprised to hear what an hon. Member had said in reply to the hon. Member for South Tyrone regarding the attitude of the Churches in the matter. Was not this question one on which the ministers of religion and the heads of the Churches and those who took an interest in the welfare of the community were entitled to be heard? They had expressed their opinion in no uncertain manner and they were all agreed on this question, even those who were not extreme temperance reformers. Men who did not wish to restrict people who wished to have drink were all in favour of this Sunday closing. In England people were more accustomed to seeing what did not occur in Ireland—the working men getting their beer in jugs for dinner on Sunday. Only to a very small extent did that exist in Ireland. Working men in Ireland if they wished to obtain beer got it in bottles. That being so, there was no real hardship on men who wanted beer with their dinner. When the public-houses were open men were tempted to go in and indulge in drink instead of going out to the country to get fresh air. They spent their afternoons in the public-houses, doing themselves and their families an incalculable injury. Then came the case of the bona fide travellers. Parliament in providing for the bona fide traveller and legislating in this matter wanted to make the legislation effective, but at the same time it said that if a man had travelled three miles the probabilities were that that man was honestly going about his business, doing his work,

1599
moving from one place to another, and therefore he might reasonably get refreshment because he did not travel merely for the purpose of getting a drink. What had this been turned to? Everybody in Ireland knew that the great thing for a publican to do was to get a public-house just three miles outside a big city, because every Sunday afternoon men went out there—not as bona fide travellers or for recreation, but simply in search of drink. That was what the bona fide traveller question had come to in Ireland, and those who had observed that knew that the only way of dealing with it was to make a real test of the bona fide traveller and not a sham test as it was at present. As it was now a man had only to walk or go three miles and he was entitled to a drink. Three miles was nothing in these days of bicycles and other conveyances. It was a very short walk on a Sunday afternoon, but it was some test for a man to have to go seven miles as the Bill proposed. Members might throw ridicule upon this proposal and refer to it as legislation run wild, but they had only to bring it back to the test of common sense and experience. An amendment of the law regarding bona fide travellers was necessary, and those who administered the law in the great cities of Ireland—the resident and the police magistrates—endorsed the view that "this change from three miles to seven was necessary, and would be a beneficial arrangement. Why should a man object if he was a bona fide traveller to putting his name and address in a book? He had nothing to complain about, and it would be a protection to the publican. They were trying to deal with a great evil, and they were not to be deterred from their purpose by mere imaginary and groundless alarm as to the injury it would do a man to put his name and address in a book. There might be someone in the House who could suggest a better means of ensuring the bona fide of travellers than those proposed in the Bill. Then there was the question of Saturday closing. It was said why did they not close them wholly. That would be an unreasonable proposal. No one wanted to be unreasonable, and the suggestion put forward in the Bill was to close public houses
1600
at nine o'clock. A grave evil in the large cities was that working men when they got their money and went out to buy provisions and other things for their families on Saturday evening, got into a public house and might stay there until eleven o'clock drinking away the money that ought to go to provide food for their children. It was not an unreasonable thing to curtail by two hours the time during which a man could go to a public house. No one wanted to prevent working men or any other men having reasonable facilities for refreshments or to say that they should not have a glass of beer; but there was no doubt that drink was a temptation even to men who were not viciously inclined, and he did not want to put too many opportunities in their way to spend their money in drink. Who was there who knew anything about life in the great cities of Ireland, and even in the small towns, who would suggest that by nine o'clock all facilities for shopping were not over? He did not think there was any hardship whatever in saying to a grocer or draper, if he chose to have a spirit licence, and unless he kept the two things separate, he must close at nine o'clock. If he wanted to get rid of one of his shops he could do so. This was not tyrranical legislation. Every one of those arguments about the interference with working men were brought up when first Sunday closing was introduced. They would always be brought up when any attempt was made to restrict licensing trade, or indeed any trade. Parliament had, by the Factory Acts, imposed certain restrictions of trade. This was a question of great importance to the social life of the community, and he was perfectly satisfied that the House would not be deterred from passing the Bill by arguments of the kind they had heard that night.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid he had read this Bill and he thought there was something to be said in its favour, and a great deal to be said in its disfavour. It was the fact that all commercial pursuits were in a state of suspension on one day of the week and it occurred to him that the selling of liquors ought not to be made an exception. But he saw nothing else in favour of the

1601
Bill. It did not do away with the bona fide traveller arrangement, but still left it possible for a man who did not mind giving out seven or ten miles from a large town to get an overload of alcohol. He would take a concrete case. What was to prevent the bona fide traveller from Belfast visiting Bangor, Newcastle, or Donaghadee? There was no doubt that people went to a town some miles off and took an overload of drink because they knew no way of getting small supplies as they wanted them. This Bill proposed that all that sort of thing should continue; therefore he objected to it. He thought, moreover, that the Bill would encourage shebeening, and he thought it was infinitely worse to have to resort to an arrangement of that kind than to go to a public house and get an ordinary drink. He believed that it would be dangerous to the cause of morality to shut up public houses altogether on Sunday, and he thought that there should be a certain period of the day when those who were accustomed to get their liquor should go and get it and should not be driven to making secret arrangements to secure it, or to frequenting clubs where there was a great deal of card-playing, gambling and other vicious amusements going on. Ten years ago he sat upon a Royal Commission which for three years examined into the licensing question and heard the evidence of upwards of 300 witnesses. That Licensing Commission exhausted the whole field of debate and considered all the subjects which were raised by this Bill, and their decision was that the present system of Sunday closing should not be stopped. Their report was to the effect that local public opinion did not justify them in recommending complete Sunday closing in the five exempted cities in Ireland. He gathered, however, from the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that he did no I think that that was the result of the report of the Commission, but it was the fact. It was also perfectly true that eight teetotalers brought up a minority report, but the report which he had quoted was the report of the majority. The fact was that this Licensing Commission consisted of eight men connected with the trade, eight teetotallers and eight neutrals, and the majority came to the conclusion that it would be a dangerous thing to
1602
close the houses altogether on Sunday. He therefore took objection to this measure and hoped it would not become an Act this session. He really felt that upon the whole it should not be read a second time. Certainly a similar measure would be rejected in England and he thought that the vast majority of the people of Ireland, notwithstanding what had been said, were in favour of opening the houses on Sunday in order to avoid greater dangers. It was a very singular thing that a trade which was under Government control—in fact, a trade which was a child of the Government, like that of the licensed victualler —should from time to time be made the subject of so many unwarrantable attacks upon those who were carrying on their business in a legitimate manner under the sanction of Parliament. He felt that he could speak disinterestedly on this subject, as he had no connection with the Irish trade, and because of his connection with the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws, and he did think that when a properly constituted Commission arrived at the conclusion that no change was necessary, a Bill of this kind should not be brought forward. He therefore hoped the House would reject it, and he would close his observations by saying that he intended to go into the lobby against it.
MR. S. COLLINSsaid he ventured to offer a few remarks in the House for the first time. The hon. Member who spoke as representing a London constituency had opposed the Bill, but he ventured as another London Member to give his earnest support to it. They ought not, he thought, to look upon this measure altogether as a teetotal question or a temperance question. He considered that it was a citizens' question, a national question, and a question for the whole of the people of this country to consider and deal with. He could assure their friends who were opposing the Bill that those who supported it did not take credit for being the possessors of all the virtues. They trusted and believed that there were many people, who were not abstainers but who were as anxious for the sobriety of the people as any temperance people. If temperance people gave very

1603
special attention to this subject why was it? It was because those who opposed these measures did not apprehend their anxiety to see the conditions of the people of this country bettered. A great deal had been said about facilities being given to the working man to get his beer. It was said that if they closed up all the public houses he could not get his beer as the rich man could, because the latter could go to his cellar and obtain it when he liked but in these days there were so many commodities which were bottled and preserved that he thought that beer and spirits could be obtained bottled by the working man just as easily as he could obtain them from a public house. If a man wanted his pint of beer or stout he could buy it at a grocers' or an off-licensed house just as readily as he could buy it from a public house. He could always have his bottle of beer in the house and enjoy it on the Sunday without going to the public house. He thought that argument was of a most fallacious character. The question must be looked at from another point of view. Scotland and Wales had been referred to. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin had said, however, that they were experimenting on Ireland; but that was not the case, because the whole experience went to show that where Sunday closing had been tried it had been a great success. Since Sunday closing had been instituted in Wales the state of things had been largely improved. Sunday, he would not say, was sacred to the people, but it was the day of rest for the people. Sunday throughout Great Britain and Ireland was reckoned to be the great day for the common people, and he thought it would be a bad day for England and Ireland when, the public houses being kept open, such a condition of things was established that the people could not rest on Sunday. A few days ago, a great meeting was held in London on this very subject, comprising members not only of the Anglican Church, of the Roman Catholic Church, but of members of all denominations; and the meeting was held to see what could be done to bring about a better condition of things in this country, so that Sunday might be held dearer by the people. If they carried out this Sunday
1604
closing, they would do much which would enable the working man to rise to greater heights. A question had been raised about the detriment which would be inflicted upon the barmen if this Bill were agreed to; but he thought that they ought not only to have consideration for the barmen, but also for the publicans and for their wives and families; and he believed that if a census were taken the majority of publicans and those engaged in the trade would vote for Sunday closing. If, moreover, they were to have sympathy with the barmen they ought also to have sympathy with the barmaids, especially as some of these toiled from 70 to 100 hours per week. He was sorry that so many of his friends from Ireland had risen in their places to oppose the Bill. He had always watched Ireland with interest and had sympathised with the aspirations of the people for their uplifting, and he thought that if those who opposed the Bill to-day would only go into the lobby in its favour they would do something to advance the cause of the people and to make Ireland what they were all anxious it should be, a happy, prosperous and contented country.
MR. A. ROCHEsaid he had listened with a great deal of interest to the debate, and he wished to deny the assertion that the Irish people were drunkards. In saying this he wished it to be understood that he had not only experience of the City of Cork but of the South of Ireland; and he could bear testimony to the fact that except upon special occasions, such as fair days, the Irish people were the most sober people in the world. Outside that, and the markets once a month, he could testify that there could not be found a more sober class of people than the class among which he lived in the South of Ireland. It was said that there were certain figures showing that the majority of the people were in favour of this legislation. He could only speak for the people of Cork, and he absolutely denied that. So far as they were concerned he was convinced that the people of Cork did not want the Bill. He had always been in favour of temperance, and had always thought that there was nothing so degrading as intemperance. But in his

1605
opinion the Bill would only lead to evil results. He knew a good many of these clubs in Cork, and he asserted that if this Sunday Closing Bill was passed for the City of Cork the clubs would increase, and the young men would frequent them and drink a great deal more than if the public-houses were open. That was his deliberate opinion He had served his city in every elective capacity, and he had had opportunities of judging of the habits of the people and could testify not only to the temperate habits of the people of Cork but of the people of the South of Ireland generally. He asserted that if this Bill were passed it would have quite the contrary effect to what hon. Members intended. He agreed with what Charles Stewart Parnell said—
"Such social questions as this could be more properly dealt with by an Irish Parliament."
It was quite possible that within a short period a measure of Home Rule would be extended to Ireland, and he knew of no question which could be more properly dealt with in Dublin than this. He appealed to the House not to pass this Bill.
MR. BARRIEsaid that although it had been suggested that this important question might usefully be left to an Irish Parliament to deal with he intended to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill because he was certain that Ireland was ripe for such legislation. There were some Amendments which would have to be made, but he hoped the Bill would with the assistance of the Government pass this year and take its place upon the Statute - book. He associated himself with all that had been said as to the sobriety of the people of Ireland. There had been a remarkable diminution of drunkenness in recent years. He lived in an important market town, and it was impossible not to observe a very remarkable falling off in the trade done by local public houses. Indeed, he felt able to assure the House that there were very few of the public houses in the town which were profitable to their owners. That fact had been evidenced by the great difficulty that was experienced in selling these houses when they came to change hands. That tended to show
1606
conclusively that drunkenness had diminished in Ireland, and they all rejoiced that that was the fact. As to Sunday travellers, he did not think that in many districts these were very numerous; in point of fact, they were rapidly becoming a thing of the past. It might be said that that was a good argument for not touching legislation in respect to Sunday travellers, but his opinion was that more difficulties should be placed in the way of such travellers. As to early closing on Saturdays, he was afraid that if public houses were closed so early as nine o'clock, there might be an increase in the number of what were termed bogus clubs. That was a real and very possible danger. He agreed with those who preferred a well-managed public house to a bogus club. He suggested, therefore, that in Committee it would be expedient to amend the measure in the way of not making it quite so drastic. The possibility was that if they began by closing public houses at ten o'clock instead of nine they might obviate that danger, and have more chance of carrying the Bill. He remembered that years ago legislation was passed in Canada requiring the closing of public-houses and hotels at seven o'clock on Saturday nights. The result of that very drastic legislation was a large increase in the illicit sale of liquor on Saturday evenings. Scotland had the same difficulty, but owing to stringent legislation passed in the last Parliament bogus clubs had been largely wiped out. Ireland was ripe for this measure. He trusted, therefore, that it would pass its Second Reading stage, and that the Government would facilitiate its passage so that it might be placed on the Statute-book this session.
MR. FINDLAYsaid he desired to take up only a few minutes of the time of the House. He intervened in the discussion because Scotland had been held up as "the frightful example" of the result of Sunday closing, and he feared that such allusions as had been made might convey an erroneous impression. In the industrial district round Glasgow, they had more than once shortened the hours of public-houses, and the result

1607
had been that many workmen who were in the habit of losing a morning through the public-houses being open till eleven o'clock had since the ten o'clock rule had come into force done nothing of the sort. A very great improvement had been noticed in that regard. In Scotland they had had Sunday closing for half a century. In his town there were some years ago six hotels which had the Sunday licence and such a nuisance did they become that the public themselves insisted upon their being closed on Sunday, and that was done with very great benefit to the town. He was satisfied that if they could get a plébiscite of the people of Scotland the votes would be ten to one in favour of Sunday closing. With regard to this question he was confident that the working men of Scotland were in favour of limiting the hours for the sale of liquor on week days and for the complete closing of the public houses on the Sunday. They all agreed that this Traffic was working a great evil, and that being so it was astonishing to him and it was a great anomaly—and he could not get beyond this point—that any legislature acting for a Christian country should legalise the public sale of anything that was having such an evil effect upon the people. From his own observation and from what he knew was the general opinion of Scotland the people would never go back to opening the public-houses on a Sunday. The Sabbath day was a day for rest and worship and anything which militated against that ought to be stamped out.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was sure that those Irish Members who were in favour of this Bill were greatly indebted to the hon. Member for North East Lanark for what he had just said. He thought if the trouble were taken to canvas the Scottish Members generally, it would be found in spite of some figures quoted by his friend the Member for Dublin county, that the Scottish Members as a whole were in favour of this Bill. He did not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill to-day. They had been discussed over and over again. He intervened because he thought the public outside would be greatly misled if this debate came to a conclusion without one representative of
1608
the Nationalist Party of Ireland saying something in favour of the Bill. They had heard the hon. Member for South Belfast give the views of the section which he represented in Ireland in favour of the Bill. They had heard from the hon. Member for South Tyrone the views of the section for which he spoke; they had had from distinguished and influential Members of the Nationalist Party a declaration against the Bill, but from not one Member of the Nationalist Party in the House had they heard any expression of opinion in favour of it. Nothing could be more misleading than to suppose that there was no Nationalist feeling upon this question. He believed he was well within the truth when he said that half those who represented Nationalist or Home Rule Constituencies in Ireland were in favour of the principle of this measure. All he could say was that in the last Parliament, when this matter was discussed in 1903, the majority of the members of the Nationalist Party recorded their votes in favour of closing earlier on Saturday night. It would be seen therefore that the opinions of the Nationalist Members were nearly as strong as those of hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies. He had always been in favour of Sunday closing in Ireland and he recalled with a considerable degree of satisfaction—and the hon. Member for South Tyrone would bear him out in this—that in the year 1878, when an Irish Sunday Closing Bill was first passed in this House, his own father, then Member for Wexford, had a good deal to do with the passing of that measure. He therefore naturally took a very great interest in the question. He was bound to say that twenty years ago, when he first entered the House, and for some time afterwards, he felt the greatest doubt as to whether restrictive-legislation of this, or any kind, would have the effect of promoting temperance in Ireland. The condition of affairs in Ireland then was that almost everything there was subject to coercion. A large number of the Members representing Irish constituencies and thousands of the Irish people were lying in prison without trial, and he held the opinion that with this Bill being administered by a policy of coercion, it would not be possible to achieve any

1609
great good. While lie voted for Sunday closing in 1892, he found on referring to Hansard that when a measure of this kind was brought in by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in 1895 he took exception to it, and expressed the view that it would not be possible to get Sunday closing in Ireland while the five great cities were exempted; that he was not satisfied with the Bill, because no undertaking was given in it to consider the position of the five large cities. They were told in those days also that an Irish Parliament—one simply representing the Irish people—was the proper tribunal to decide this question. He held those views twenty years ago and ten years ago, but he was not ashamed to say that he had changed his opinion to this extent, that while he would be glad to see every Irish question settled by a purely Irish assembly, and while he thought that that was the proper assembly to settle such questions, he thought that this question was of such urgency that it should be dealt with by this Parliament, or any Parliament that could deal with it. Hon. Gentlemen representing Ireland could claim that they were as much in favour of temperance as anyone in this House. There were no temperance Members in this House who could exceed the views on temperance reform of the Irish Members. There was not a man on the Irish benches among those who were going presently to oppose this Bill who would not say he did not consider it his duty to do everything in his power to promote temperance. The difference was that they did not believe that temperance was to be promoted by measures such as this. Objection was taken to this Bill from two points of view. First of all they were told that it was a Bill to be dealt with by an Irish Parliament. He hoped there would soon be an Irish Parliament, but in the meantime he would say that if they were willing to take from this Parliament legislation on the land question and other matters affecting the benefit of the people they should also take legislation upon this, which was a question of vital importance to their people. The question was, was this method of dealing with it effective? Hon. Gentlemen said it would have a contrary effect. Figures
1610
were quoted to show that it had failed in Scotland, but he did not believe there was any question upon which they could not get figures to prove something different. He believed a dispassionate consideration of the figures connected with this matter would prove that Sunday closing had been a success and was an argument in favour of this measure. The point to consider in regard to this Bill was this. Was it not good to remove the temptation to drink? Some said that if public-houses were not open clubs would be established and drinking would go on there. But he submitted that that was not true, that open public-houses constituted a great temptation, and that without a great success being achieved by this measure its passage could do no possible harm and possibly some good. It was said that the Irish people should not be legislated for in this manner. But the whole of the people of Scotland had been legislated for in this way. It was unnecessary for him to say that every Irishman repudiated with indignation and scorn the charge that the Irish were more drunken than any other people. The figures year after year proved that more money was spent in drink in England than in Scotland; that more was spent in Scotland than in Ireland, and that in proportion to the population less was spent in Ireland than in either Scotland or England. One of the hardest things which men who demanded this legislation had to face was the insinuation that when demanding temperance legislation of this kind they were tacitly admitting the accuracy of the charge made against their country. Nothing of the sort. He believed that Irishmen as a whole were infinitely more sober than either the people of England or Scotland, and while he supported this legislation he indignantly repudiated that statement as contrary to the fact. Upon the question generally he would only say that the amount of money spent in Ireland in intoxicating liquor was far too much. It was a monstrous thing from any point of view that double the whole rental value of Ireland should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Belfast had referred to a statement he (Mr. Redmond) made some years ago to the

1611
effect that when he was abroad on a political mission endeavouring to get something for the Irish people he was continually confronted with the statement that in Ireland, a country suffering under a great many disabilities, £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 was spent in drink. He said the Irish people could not afford to do that, and that money spent in that way was a danger to the national life of the country. He did not entirely endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone, or of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth. He did not go so far in this matter as they. In his view there was nothing that was in itself wrong, illegitimate, or criminal in the use of alcohol provided it was used and not abused, but he did say that for a country with a population of 4,000,000 of people to find £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 spent annually in drink could not be right. The drink Bill of the country was enormously large. With the enormous expenditure of this country they heard of overwhelming burdens—the Boer war cost £250,000,000—of little children going to school showing hunger in their faces; of the workhouses being crowded by honest men and women whose only crime that they were poor in their old age. When appeals were made to the Government to feed the hungry children and to keep the old and honest poor out of the workhouse they said there was no money. Then they went into the library and found from the statistics that close on £200,000,000 was spent every year on drink. Therefore he said that legislation of this kind or of any kind that would promote the general idea of temperance was good. The need for Ireland was not so great as that for the two countries of Great Britain, but the demand was great and so far as he was concerned he, so far from being ashamed of the fact, said, that in his experience, which covered the whole of the British Empire, the evidence had carried weight with him; that he had been open to conviction, and he was able now frankly to say that he believed something should be done by Parliament and the Government to help the people towards that better condition of temperance which they all desired to see. He knew it was not
1612
always a popular thing to take this view, still less was it popular for a Member of the Nationalist Party to change his views as he had changed his on this matter. He met the other day a friend who said to him—
"Much as you have changed your opinions in this matter, surely you are not going to follow the lead of the hon. Member for South Belfast, who is one of the most bitter Orangemen and one of the most bitter enemies of the Irish Nationalist sentiment in Ireland."
His reply to that was that while he had no love for the Orange section, the hon. Member, representing not merely the Orange section, was right in this matter, and that if the hon. Member represented his Satanic majesty himself, so long as he did what was right he would support him. He for one was heartily glad that there was at least one question upon which Irish Members of all parties were agreed. This was one of the greatest questions of the day and one of the best signs he saw in Ireland to-day was that there was throughout the length and breadth of the country a desire upon the part of all, to whatever school of thought they belonged, to do the best they could for the country upon all those questions upon which they could agree, and that they were becoming more eager to regard each other with that toleration, good feeling, and comradeship which ought to obtain in that country. It was particularly hard for him to take the course he was now pursuing, because many of his best and most respected friends in Ireland were gentlemen connected with the licensed trade; of those gentlemen he had nothing whatever to say except what was good. They had taken their full part in the local life of the country and for every good cause their hands and their purses were stretched out. He made an appeal to new Members of Parliament to listen to the voices of the Irish people in this matter. The tendency in Ireland to-day was in favour of sobriety and national temperance, and those who said the country was drunken should go to Dublin on St. Patrick's Day, the day of the patron saint of Ireland, when they would see a vast concourse of 50,000 or 60,000 people, celebrating the day, and all of them sober. No other city in the would could show so splendid

1613
a spectacle. He did not know that he would have many more opportunities of speaking upon this subject. He had parted from friends that he had been closely connected with for twenty-three years over this matter. He had received condemnation from quarters which he should never have anticipated it from. Those were personal matters which he only mentioned to show that he was acting in this matter from most absolute and sincere convictions. Every single personal influence he had in the world was against it, many of his personal friends and many of his political supporters were against him and nothing more or less than a simple but absolute sense that it was his duty as a man enabled him to speak out to-day. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to remember that though none of the leading Members of the Nationalist Party were speaking in the direction in which he spoke, he believed the majority of the rank and file were in favour of the Bill. In this matter he spoke for a number of the rank and file of the Irish Party, and in their name appealed to hon. Members opposite to allow this Bill to be read a second time, and to show the public at large that there was a disposition on the part of this House to give to the Irish people those powers which were necessary for the promotion of national temperance, and which were for the national good.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said he did not remember for a very long time having heard a speech in which the true note of personal conviction and earnest sincerity rang so clear and true. It was with the greatest pleasure that English and Scottish Members found the Irish Members joining in the promotion of a reform which affected the interest of their common country apart from divisions of religious and political opinion. He trusted that this habit would grow, and that the Irish Members would be found co-operating more and more in all movements tending to the social and economic progress of the country. The arguments advanced in favour of this measure were practically the same for the three countries, and therefore the experience of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall might well be
1614
cited. That experience was in favour of this Hill. The experience in those three districts was that a restriction in the sale of intoxicating liquor did tend to a considerable diminution of intemperance. Saturday and Sunday were the two days of the week on which the temptation to drink was greatest, because the workers were paid upon a Saturday, while on Sunday they had nothing to do. In addition to the experience of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall they, had the experience of those parts of Ireland in which Sunday closing had already produced a great effect. The results in the areas of Ireland outside the excepted five cities had bean admittedly beneficial and thoroughly good. No demand had come from the other parts of Ireland for any relaxation of the existing restrictions, and, therefore, there was a strong presumption in favour of this suggested extension. Personally he believed that there was a real movement in favour of temperance in Ireland, and in his judgment this was one of the most encouraging signs connected with the progress of the country. He denied that the Catholic Church did not sufficiently advocate temperance. The most striking temperance campaign ever attempted was that of Father Mathew. He must also pay a tribute to the work done by the Gaelic League, which had set itself with great earnestness and a large measure of success to encouraging temperance. The argument that a limitation of hours ought to be accompanied by compensation had no sanction m precedent and was far-fetched. It was said that these restrictions would lead to the illicit sale of liquor; but it had not been found impossible to keep the traffic under control in other towns. As to the inconvenience inflicted on a few working men, they might well consent to submit to it for the sake of the immeasurable benefit to their class. For these reasons the case of Ireland was stronger for these restrictions than that of England or Scotland. The Irish nation were given to hospitality; and the invitation to an Irishman to drink in the company of his friends was more tempting than to the Englishman and much more than to the Scotchman. In the second place Ireland was a much poorer country than either England or Scotland, or even than Wales, and this worked in a doubly

1615
injurious way. The poorer a man was the more wretched he was, and the more apt he was to seek some consolation in drink, and the less he had to pay for it. Therefore the poverty of Ireland was a reason why they should be more anxious and scrupulous to remove temptation out of the way of the Irishman even than out of the way of the Englishman. Lastly he was bound to revert to a more delicate matter. It had come to his knowledge that the growth of tubercular disease was assuming very serious proportions. It was getting worse in Ireland, whereas it was getting less in Scotland, and he thought the time had come when serious measures might have to be taken to endeavour to arrest it. He was sure the habit of intemperance was one of the causes which made for the increase of
tubercular disease, and both tubercular disease and the abuse of intoxicating liquor produced a further result even more deplorable. The increase of lunacy in Ireland was one of the most alarming symptoms. No one doubted, he supposed, that excessive use of alcohol was one of the most active and predisposing causes. On these grounds alone, he had no hesitation in supporting this Bill.
MR. SLOANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided; Ayes, 222; Noes. 47. (Division List No. 92.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hart-Davies, T.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Corbett,CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cox, Harold

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Armitage, R.

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cremer, William Randal

Hedges, A. Paget

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Crombie, John William

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Crooks, William

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Barker, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Higham, John Sharp

Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Delany, William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry,N.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Houston, Robert Paterson

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Beauchamp, E.

Dickinson, W.H. (S.Pancras,N.

Hudson, Walter

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S. Geo)

Dodd, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Jardine, Sir J,

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jenkins, J.

Billson, Alfred

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Branch, James

Elibank, Master of

Joyce, Michael

Brigg, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kekewich, Sir George

Bright, J. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brooke, Stopford

Fenwick, Charles

Kitson, Sir James

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Ferens, T. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

Ffrench, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Findlay, Alexander

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Gill, A. H.

Lehmann, R. C.

Byles, William Pollard

Ginnell, L.

Liddell, Henry

Cairns, Thomas

Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Cameron, Robert

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lough, Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Lundon, W.

Channing, Francis Allston

Grant, Corrie

Lupton, Arnold

Cheetham, John Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clough, W.

Hall, Frederick

Macpherson, J. T.

Coats,Sir T Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Hamilton, Marquess, of

M'Callum, John M.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

M'Crae, George

Collins, Sir W. J. (S.Pancras,W

Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cooper, G. J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester

M'Laren, H. B. (Stafford, W.)

Rees, J. D.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Renton, Major Leslie

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Massie, J.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Tomkinson, James

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rickett, J. Compton

Torrance, A. M.

Montgomery, H. H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Verney F. W.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walters, John Tudor

Morpeth, Viscount

Robertson,Sir G ScottfBradf'rd

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

Morrell, Philip

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ward,W. Dudley (Southamp'n

Murnaghan, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Murray, James

Russell, T. W.

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Myer, Horatio

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Watt, H. Anderson

Napier, T. B.

Scarisbriek, T. T. L.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nicholls, George

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Sears, J. E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wiles, Thomas

Paul, Herbert

Snowden, P.

Wilkie, Alexander

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Spicer, Albert

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Pollard, Dr.

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Priestley,W.E. B.(Bradford, E.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Padford, G. H.

Sullivan, Donal

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Bainy, A. Rolland

Summerbell, T.

Yoxall, James Henry

Baphael, Herbert H.

Sutherland, J. E.

Bea, Russell (Gloucester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

Bedmond, William (Clare)

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

O'Doherty, Philip

Acland-Hood.Rt Hn Sir Alex F.

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.Sir H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Hare, Patrick

Baldwin, Alfred

Lockwood, Rt, Hn Lt-Col.A. R.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon.N.

Barnard, E. B.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal E.)

Reddy, M.

BottomIey, Horatio

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bowles, G. Stewart

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

M'Killop, W.

Rothschild, Sir Edward Albert

Gavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Meagher, Michael

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cogan, Denis J.

Mooney, J. J.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrese

Crean, Eugene

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Dixon-Hartland,Sir Fred Dixon

Nolan, Joseph

Young, Samuel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Younger, George

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nanetti and Mr Clancy.

Halpin, J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 243; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 93.)

AYES.

Agnew, George William

Bellairs, Carlyon

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness, Burghs

Alden, Percy

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen, A.Acland (Christchurch)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Armstruther-Gray, Major

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas

Armitage, R.

Billson, Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cairns, Thomas

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Caldwell, James

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Boland, John

Cameron, Robert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Branch, James

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Barker, John

Brigg, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset)

Bright, J. A.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brooke, Stopford

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cleland, J. W.

Beale, W. P.

Brunner, J. F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Clough, W.

Beauchamp, E,

Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Jenkins, J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Corbett,A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Renton, Major Leslie

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Joyce, Michael

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Cox, Harold

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cremer, William Randal

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Crombie, John William

Kitson, Sir James

Robertson.Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

Crooks, William

Laidlaw, Robert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Dalrymple Viscount

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamont, Norman

Russell, T. W.

Delany, William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Schwann, Chas.E. (Manchester

Dickinson, W.H.(S.Pancras,N.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Dodd, W. H.

Liddell, Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Simon, John Allsebrook

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lundon, W.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lupton, Arnold

Snowdon, P.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

Lyell, Charles Henry

Spicer, Albert

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanger, H. Y.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Steadman, W. C.

Elibank, Master of

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macpherson, J. T.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Sullivan, Donal

Fewnick, Charles

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Sutherland, J. E.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Thomasson, Franklin

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Gill, A. H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tokminson, James

Ginnell, L.

Montgomery, H. H.

Torrance, A. M.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Verney, F. W.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walters, John Tudor

Grant, Corrie

Morpeth, Viscount

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

Morrell, Philip

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Murnaghan, George

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hall, Frederick

Murray, James

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Myer, Horatio

Watt, H. Anderson

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Napier, T. B.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hardy, George, A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Weir, James Galloway

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Donnell, C J. (Walworth)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Mara, James

Whitehead, Rowland

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wiles, Thomas

Hazleton, Richard

Paul, Herbert

Wilkie, Alexander

Hedges, A. Paget

Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Wilson, Herny J, (York, W.R.)

Henderson.J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pollard, Dr.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Power, Patrick Joseph

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Houston, Robert Paterson

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Yoxall, James Henry

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, Robert John (Norfolk.E.)

Hudson, Walter

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

Hyde, Clarendon

Radford, G. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Rainy, A. Rolland

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bowles, G. Stewart

Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Barnard, E. B.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Baldwin, Alfred

Bottomley, Horatio

Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.

1620

1621

Cogan Denis,T.

Meagher, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Crean, Eugene

Mooney, J. J.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Thornton, Percy M.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Harrison, Broadley, Col. H. B.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Young, Samuel

Hogan, Michael

O'Doherty, Philip

Younger George

Hunt, Rowland

O'Dowd, John

Lockwood,Rt. Hn.Lt.-CoI.A.R.

O'Hare, Patrick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Reddy, M.

M'Killop, W.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 244; Noes. 50. (Division List No. 94).

AYES

Agnew, George William

Crooks, William

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, A. Acland (Christch.)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hobart, Sir Robert

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Armitage, R.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Delany, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (G'lw.

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hyde, Clarendon

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Dodd, W. H.

Jackson, R. S.

Barker, John

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

Barlow, John Emmott (S'm's't

Donelan, Captain A.

Jenkins, J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Duncan, J. H (York, Otley)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Beale, W. P.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,G'v'n

Jordan, Jeremiah

Beauchamp, E.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Joyce, Michael

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Elibank, Master of

Kekewich, Sir George

Bilson Alfred

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kilbride, Denis

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Evans, Samuel T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kitson, Sir James

Boland, John

Everell, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Branch, James

Fenwick, Charles

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Brigg, John

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

Bright, J. A.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Brooke, Stopford

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Ffrench, Peter

Leese,SirJoseph F. (Accrington

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann, R. C.

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

Findlay, Alexander

Lewis, John Herbert

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Gardener, Col. Alan (Heref'dS.

Liddell, Henry

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gill, A. H.

Lough, Thomas

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ginnell, L.

Lundon, W.

Byles, William Pollard

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Lupton, Arnold

Cairns, Thomas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Henry

Caldwell, James

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cameron, Robert

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'hs

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G(Peterborough)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Channing, Francis Allston

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macpherson, J. T.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hall, Frederick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Hamilton, Harquess of

M'Callum, John M.

Cleland, J. W.

Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew,W.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Crae, George

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Cooper, G. J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hayden, John Patrick

Montgomery, H. H.

Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

Hazleton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Craig,Captain James (Down E.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morpeth, Viscount

Cremer, William Randal

Henderson, J. M. (Aberd'n, W.

Morrell, Philip

Crombie, John William

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Morse, L. L.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomasson Franklin

Murnaghan, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Murray, James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tomkinson, James

Myer, Horatio

Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'd

Torrance, A. M.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Verney, F. W.

Nicholls, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Walters, John Tudor

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Runciman, Walter

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Russell, T. W.

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampt'n)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

O'Mara James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Watt, H. Anderson

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Schwann,Chas. E. (Manchester)

Weir, James Galloway

Paul, Herbert

Sears, J. E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Philipps.J.Wynford (Pembroke

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whitehead, Rowland

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wiles, Thomas

Pollard, Dr.

Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Wilkie, Alexander

Power, Patrick Joseph

Snowden, P.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central

Spicer, Albert

Wilson, Henry J. (York.W.R.)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk,E.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh.N.)

Priestley,W. E. B.(Bradford,E)

Steadman, W. C.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Radford, G. H,

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Sullivan, Donal

Yoxall, James Henry

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sutherland, J. E.

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

Renton, Major Leslie

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

NOES.

Abraham,William'(Cork,N.E.)

Halpin, J.

O'Hare, Patrick

Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlexF.

Harrington, Timothy

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Ambrose, Robert

Hogan, Michael

Reddy, M.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Ht.Hn. SirH.

Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Baldwin, Alfred

Long, Col. Charles W. (Eves'm

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Banner, John S. Harmwood-

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal,E

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Barnard, E. B.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Sassoon Sir Edward Albert

Bottomley, Horatio

M'Killop, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Bowles, G. Stewart

Meagher, Michael

Thornton, Percy M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Mooney, J. J.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Bridgeman, W.Clive

Nolan, Joseph

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond.

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Cogan, Denis J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel

Crean, Eugene

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Younger, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Doherty, Philip

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Dowd, John

Bill read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."—(Mr. Sloan.)
MR. CREANopposed the Motion. He argued that he and other Members had not had the opportunity of expressing the views of their constituents on the Second Reading and were entitled to be heard in Committee on the floor of the House. He protested against the Bill being discussed
1624
in a back room upstairs. He thought they were quite justified in opposing this Motion. Not a single Nationalist Irishman on any of the public boards in Ireland had ever stood up in support of this Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bill on this Motion. The question is whether or not the measure should be sent to the Committee.
MR. CREANsaid many hon. Members had been deprived of the opportunity of

1625
giving their views on account of the Closure, and, although he was a teetotaller himself, he thought he was justified in opposing this Motion and insisting that this Bill should be discussed on the floor of this House. He was adopting this course because he considered that it was the duty of an Irish representative to express the views of his own constituency and not give expression to fads of his own.
MR. SLOANupon a point of order asked if the hon. Member was in order in discussing the principle of the Bill.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's argument is quite in order.
MR. CREANsaid he was not a member of the Sending Committee to which it was proposed to refer this Bill, and therefore, if this Motion was carried, he would he debarred from voicing the opinions of his constituency. Many hon. Members had spoken in fear and trembling of what would happen if they voted against this Bill. He thought they had a perfect right to demand that this measure should not be sent to a Committee upstairs. All the hon. Members who had spoken had not got the courage of the hon. Member for East Clare, who had confessed that he represented not the views of his constituents upon this question, but his own strong feelings in the matter.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. A meeting of my constituents was called and they passed a Resolution condemning my action, and I replied, stating that if they took steps to show me that they represented any large body of my constituents I would resign at once. I may say that I have never heard from them since on this question.
MR. CREANsaid that personally he should be very sorry that any steps should be taken by the electors of East Clare which would deprive them of the eloquent services and the geniality of the hon. Member. Although he differed from the hon. Member on this question, if he were asked to sign such a memorial he would be the first to say "Leave him
1626
alone; he is a good fellow although he may be wrong." He hoped that hon. Members would join with him in protesting against this Bill being taken from the purview of the House. He knew that the feelings of hon. Members like the Member for South Tyrone were so strong upon this subject that he would defy the opinions of a majority of his constituents if necessary, but he thought on a matter of this kind the views of the electors ought to prevail.
MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid he was sure he should be voicing the opinion of all his colleagues when he congratulated the hon. Member for South Fermanagh upon his recovery, and upon having left a sick bed to attend and vote according to his convictions. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for South East Cork that this measure ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House. If it were discussed by such a Committee Members would have an opportunity of seeing that it, was being imposed upon the Irish people against the wishes of a great majority of Irish Nationalist Members. If it were sent to a Committee upstairs the public would not know what was being done. Although the Irish Nationalists represented a minority on this question they represented the feelings of the Irish people. Were they going to allow themselves to be voted down by Englishmen and Scotsmen on a question which vitally affected Ireland? It was their bounden duty to use all the forms of the House to protest against any action which would facilitate the furtherance of the Bill. Who were the members of this Grand Committee?
MR. SLOANrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be, now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assene, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. J. P. NANNETTI, continuing his Speoch, said it was not right that individual feelings on such a momentous question as this should be allowed to overrule the opinion of the representatives of Ireland. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]
MR. SLOANagain rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes 234; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 95.)

AYES

Adkins, W. Ryland

Dodd, W. H.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Agnew, George William

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lehmann, R. C.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Armitage, R.

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

Liddell, Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Atherley-Jones, L.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lough, Thomas

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Elibank, Master of

Lundon, W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lupton, Arnold

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Evans, Samuel T.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lyell, Charles Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Macpherson, J. T.

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ffrench, Peter

M'Crae, George

Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S.Geo.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Frederick

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford, S.

Montgomery, H. H.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Billson, Alfred

Gill, A. H.

Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Black, Alexander Win. (Banff)

Ginnell, L.

Morpeth, Viscount

Boland, John

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Morrell, Philip

Branch, James

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Morse, L. L.

Bright, J. A.

Grant, Corrie

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Murnaghan, George

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Griffith, Ellis J.

Murray, James

Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Myer, Horatio

Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Bryce,J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Nicholls, George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Byles, William Pollard

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cairns, Thomas

Hazleton, Richard

O'Grady, J.

Caldwell, James

Hedges, A. Paget

OMara, James

Cameron, Robert

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Higham, John Sharp

Paul, Herbert

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Cleland, J. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Coats, Sir T.Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pirie, Duncan V.

Collins Sir Wm. J.(S.PancrasW

Jackson, R. S.

Pollard, Dr.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Cooper, G. J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Price,Robert John(Norfolk.E.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Jones,William (Carnarvonsnire

Priestley, W.E.B. (Bradford,E.

Corbett,C.H(Sussex,EGrinst'd

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rainy, A. Rolland

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.

Joyce, Michael

Raphael, Herbert H.

Craig,Captain James (Down,E.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cremer, William Randal

Kekewich, Sir George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Crombie, John William

Kilbride, Denis

Rees, J. D.

Crooks, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Renton, Major Leslie

Dalziel, James Henry

Kitson, Sir James

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mp'n

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Laildaw, Robert

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Roberts, Chares H. (Lincoln)

Delany, William

Lambert, George

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh.S.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Robertson.Sir G.Scott (Bradf'd

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Steadman, W

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Runciman, Walter

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Weir, James Galloway

Russell, T. W.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Sullivan, Donal

Whitehead, Rowland

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wiles, Thomas

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Wilkie, Alexander

Schwann, Clias.E. (Manchester)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E

Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh.N.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Torrance, A. M.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Verney, F.W.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walters, John Tudor

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Snowden, P.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampton

Spicer, Albert

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.

Stanger, H. Y

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.)

Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

O'Doherty, Philip

Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Ambrose, Robert

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Hare, Patrick

Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirH.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Barnard, E. B.

Lockwood.Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bottomley, Horatio

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Reddy, M.

Boyle, Sir Edward

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Bull, Sir William James

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Cavendish,Rt. Hon.Victor C.W.

M'Killop, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Thornton, Percy M.

Crean, Eugene

Meagher, Mchael

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E.Howard

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mooney, J. J.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Faber, George Denison (York)

Murphy, John

White, Patrick (Meath,North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Young, Samuel

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Younger, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Halpin J.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett.

Harrington Timothy

O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Question put, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."
The House divided:—Ayes, 229; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 96.)

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Brooke, Stopford

Craig,Captain James (Down,E

Agnew, George William

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cremer, William Randal

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Brunncr, J.F.L.(Lancs. Leigh)

Crombie, John William

Armitage, R.

Bryce, Rt HnJames (Aberdeen

Crooks, William

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

Dalziel, James Henry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Davies, Timothy (Fulham

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Bull, Sir William James

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Baring, Godfrey, (Isle of Wight

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Delany, William

Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Byles, William Pollard

Dobson, Thomas, W.

Barrie,H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Cairns, Thomas

Dodd, W. H.

Beale, W. P.

Caldwell, James

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Beauchamp, E.

Cameron, Robert

Donelan, Captain, A.

Beaumont,Hubert (Eastbourne

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Bellairs, Carlyon

Channing, Francis Allston

Duncan, J, H. (York, Otley)

Benn,W. (T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Berridge, T. H. D.

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Elibank, Master of

Billson, Alfred

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Evans, Samuel, T.

Boland, John

Cooper, G. J.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Branch, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Everett, R. Lacey

Bright, J. A.

Corbett, CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Fenwick, Charles

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, SirG.Scott (Bradf'rd

Ffrench, Peter

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald,JM (Falkirk B'ghs

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Findlay, Alexander

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Runciman, Walter

Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Russell, T. W.

Gibb, James, (Harrow)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gill, A. H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down.S.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ginnell, L.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

M'Crae, George

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Grant, Corrie

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Sears, J. E.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Montgomery, H. H.

Shaw, Rt. Hon.T. (Hawick, B.)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Haldane,.Rt. Hon.Richard B.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hamilton, Marquess of

Morpeth, Viscount

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morrell, Philip

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hart-Davies, T.

Morse, L. L.

Snowden, P.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Albert

Hayden, John Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Hazleton, Richard

Murphy, John

Steadman, W. C.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, James

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)

Myer, Horatio

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Higham, John Sharp

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nicholls, George

Sullivan, Donal

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholson Charles N.(Doncast'r

Taylor.Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Hudson, Walter

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nussey Thomas Willans

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Donnell C. J. (Walworth)

Thomas,Abel (Carmarthen.E.)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Grady J.

Thompson, J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

O'Mara, James

Torrance, A. M.

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Verney, F. W.

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walters, John Tudor

Joyce, Michael

Paul, Herbert

Ward,W. Dudley (Southampton

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wason Eugene (Clackmannan)

Kekewich, Sir George

Philips.J.Wynford (Pembroke

Wason John Cathcart(Orkney)

Kilbride, Denis

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Weir, James Galloway

Kitson, Sir James

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Laidlaw, Rovert

Pollard, Dr.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whitehead, Rowland

Lambert, George

Price,C.E.(Edinburgh,C'ntral)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, P, W. (St.Pancras, S.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Lehmann, R. C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lewis, John Herbert

Rees, J. D.

Yoxall, James Henry

Liddell, Henry

Renton, Major Leslie

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sloan and Mr. T. L. Corbett

Lough, Thomas

Rickett, J. Compton

Lundon, W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lupton, Arnold

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

NOES.

Abraham,William (Cork. N.E.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.Sir Alex.F

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Ambrose, Robert

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir H.

Hogan, Michael

O'Doherty, Philip

Barnard, E. B.

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Dowd, John

Bottomley, Horatio

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Hare, Patrick

Boyle, Sir Edward

Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E)

Reddy, M.

Cogan, Denis J.

M'Hugh, Patrick, A.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Crean, Eugene

Dalrymple, Viscount

Meagher, Michael

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Faber, George Denison, (York)

Mooney, J. J

Rothschild Hon LionelWalter

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, E.)

O'Brien.Kendal (TipperaryMid

Thornton, Percy M,

1632

1633

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E. Howard

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Nannetti and Mr. Clancy.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Young, Samuel

Watt, H. Anderson

Younger, George

Resolution agreed to.

Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
GROUND GAME BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (COMMISSION) BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22nd May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again proposed.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of monoys provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Secretary of State, and of the remuneration and expenses of medical referees and arbitrators incurred under any Act of the present session to consolidate and amend the Law with respect to compensation to workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and of compensation to Workmen employed by or under the Crown in pursuance of such Act."
And, it being half-past five of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
Adjourned at half after Five o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) [H.L.]. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Waterford Corporation and Bridge.
And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill. Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Folkestone and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Hill [H.L.]; The order made on the 3rd instant appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [H.L.]; Report from
1514
the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 5th of March and 3rd of May discharged, and Bill committed for Tuesday next.
London and South Western Railway Bill. London County Buildings Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Peterborough Gas Bill; Read 2a, and committed.
Southampton Gas Bill; Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
Newport Corporation Bill [H.L.] Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Alkali, etc., Works Bill; brought from the Commons.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Woxford Railway Bill; North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill; London United Tramways Bill; Manchester Corporation Bill; Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]; Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; Mirfield Gas Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Holyhead Water Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Thornton Urban District Gas Bill; returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, (according to order).
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Marriages Provisional Order Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Report, Statistics, etc., relating to continuation classes and central institutions (Scotland) 1904–1905.
  COMMERCIAL No. 4 (1906) (SUEZ CANAL).
  Returns of shipping and tonnage, 1903, 1904, and 1905 (in continuation of "Commercial, No. 2, 1903").

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3597. Morocco (Tangier).
  No. 3598. United States (Boston).
  No. 3599. France (Cherbourg).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Eleventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland, 1905.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of January, 1906.

  SIGHT TESTS.
  Report on the sight tests used in the mercantile marine for the year ended December 31st, 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 2558]).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Amended prison rule relating to Prison Officers Fine Fund.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council, dated May 11th, 1906—Exempting from re-measurement in this country, Italian merchant ships, and revoking previous Orders in Council; fixing the engineering establishment to be maintained in future by the corporation of the Trinity House.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTS, 1878 AND 1889.
  Two Orders in Council, dated May 11th, 1906—Approving new denominations of standard weights of twenty pounds, ten pounds, and five pounds; fixing the fees to be taken by inspectors of weights and measures on the verification and stamping of each of the above named weights.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council, dated May 11th, 1906, increasing the quantity of certain fireworks which may be kept on registered premises.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Two Orders in Council, dated May 11th, 1906, entitled—
  The Zanzibar Order in Council, 1906.
  The Federated Malay States Appeals Order in Council, 1906.

  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870–1895.
  Order in Council, dated May 11th, 1906, for giving effect to a treaty concluded between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Nicaragua for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Read a, and to be printed. (No. 101.)

  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as this is the first Bill of the kind which has

  1517
  been introduced into this House, it would, perhaps, be proper on my part to say a few words of explanation. Under an Act which was passed in the last session of Parliament by the late Government, it was provided that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be able to make certain marriages, about which there was any doubt, legal under a provisional order, and the Act provided that, a number of provisional orders might be made, that method being thought more convenient than passing a different Bill with regard to every set of marriages about which there might be doubt. Your Lordships will see in the Provisional Order Bill itself the churches to which it applies, and as the Bill has passed the other House without any Amendment, I venture to hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill read a.

  THE REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS.
  LORD AVEBURYrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they had taken any steps to carry out the suggestion made by the Prime Minister in a speech on December 22nd, 1905, that as "the policy of huge armaments feeds the belief that force is the best, if not the only solution of international differences…it becomes one of the highest tasks of the statesman to adjust armaments to the new and happier conditions"; and, if so, whether there were any Papers which could be laid on the Table of the House.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the 22nd of last December the Prime Minister made an important speech in which he said—
  "I hold that the growth of armaments is a great danger to the peace of the world. The policy of huge armaments feeds the belief that force is the best—if not the only—solution of international differences. It is a policy which tends to inflame old sores and to create new sores, and I submit to you that as the principle of peaceful arbitration gains ground, it becomes one of the highest tasks of statesmen to adjust armaments to the new and happier conditions. What nobler rôle could this country have than at the fitting moment to place itself at the head of a League of Peace, through whose instrumentality this great work could be effected!"
  1518
  The Prime Minister does not stand alone I in his opinions. In one of his last I speeches the late Lord Salisbury said—
  "Remember this—that the federation of Europe is the embryo of the only possible; structure of Europe which can save civilisation from the desolating effects of a disaster of war. You notice that on all sides the instruments of destruction, the piling up of arms, are j becoming larger and larger. The powers of I concentration are becoming greater, and instruments of death more active, and more numerous, and are improved with every year; and each nation is bound for its own safety's sake to take part in this competition. The one hope that we have to prevent this competition from ending in a terrible effort of mutual destruction which would be fatal to Christian civilisation—the only hope we have, is, that the Powers may gradually be brought together I to act together in a friendly spirit on all questions of difference which may arise, and till at last they shall be wedded in some international constitution which shall give to the world, as a result of their great strength, a long spell of unfettered and prosperous trade and continued peace."
  Sir Spenser Walpole in his History of England, says of Lord Beaconsfield that he—
  "Saw more clearly than almost any other leading statesman that the strength of the country lay, not in increased armaments, but in its growing resources; and that, if these resources were squandered in time of peace, they will not be available in war. He declared, in a passage which ought to be inscribed in letters of gold, that the power to raise the income-tax in an emergency was a far more formidable weapon than any which increased fleets or armies could supply."
  Unfortunately, we have now an income-tax of a shilling in the pound in a time of peace! In the last ten years we have increased our national expenditure by about £70,000,000, and our local expenditure by about the same amount, making a total increase of £130,000,000. Our population has increased 10 per cent., our indebtedness has increased 21 per cent., and our national expenditure has increased 30 per cent. Moreover, as regards local finance during the last five years, while our population has increased 5 per cent.; our local loans have increased 34 per cent, and our local expenditure 30 per cent. Of course I only refer to the local figures just to show that the increase in our national expenditure is not counterbalanced by any diminution, but, on the contrary, is aggravated by an enormous increase in our local expenditure.
  Evidently, therefore, the position is most serious, and the matter urgent.

  1519
  Looking to the future, while I doubt not that as regards our civil and local expenditure much economy might be exercised, on the other hand there will be unavoid able increases, and I am not sanguine enough to hope for any serious diminution. The only important decrease which seems possible would be in naval and military expenditure. Ten years ago our naval and military expenditure was £35,600,000. Last year, without including extra receipts and other items which would largely increase the real amount, it was £66,270,000, showing an increase of no less than £30,700,000. My Lords, in making this enormous increase we have surely incurred a great moral responsibility. What should we have said it France or Germany had increased their armaments to the same extent? I rejoice, therefore, that the House of Commons has just passed a very strong Resolution, with which I cordially concur, in favour of a great reduction.
  It is evident that the force which each nation requires depends greatly on that of other countries. But until recently we could not suggest any reduction with effect, because it was impossible for us to diminish our armaments. The case is now, however, very different. Of late years the increase in our armaments has been far greater than in those of other European countries, as for instance of France or Germany. Lord Beaconsfield spoke of our bloated armaments. I do not know what terms, even in his rich vocabulary, he would find graphic and strong enough to describe them now. Moreover, they are not only a gigantic expense, but a danger to peace, and indefinitely increase the risk of war. It is often said that this enormous rise has been forced on us by the increases in the armaments of foreign Powers. Those who lie under this impression have evidently not looked into the facts. In the last ten years Italy has increased her naval and military expenditure by £1,500,000; France by £6,000,000; Germany by £8,700,000. Our increase during the same period has been over £30,000,000—something like double that of France and Germany put together!
  In one of his most interesting speeches Mr. Balfour attempted to show, and I think did show, that any invasion of this country was hopeless. I do not, however, base my argument on this.
  1520
  There can be no doubt that European nations, including ourselves, are all greatly overburdened with taxation. The statesmen of Europe do not seem to realise how closely the interests of different countries are bound together. This is especially true in our case. We have immense investments all over the world. Our merchants are in all lands: we have built the railways almost all over Europe, and indeed in almost ail countries, with of course some exceptions, of which the United States is the most important. The Russo-Japanese war has, indirectly, cost; us millions. The late Lord Derby once said that the greatest of British interests is peace. And so it is, not merely that we should be ourselves at peace with other countries, but that they should be at peace one with another. In fact, the interests of nations are so interwoven, we are bound together by such strong, if sometimes invisible threads, that if one suffers all suffer; if one flourishes, it is good for the rest.
  From another point of view, however, the interest of other countries is even greater than ours. The pressure of taxation, heavy in this country, is even more serious and severe in others. The time seems very suitable for some such action. Russia requires rest to recover from the ruinous losses of the last war. She has to choose between economy and bankruptcy. Moreover, has not the Emperor summoned the Hague Conference? France is friendly; she knows that we are her best customer; we take one-third of all her exports, and it is most important for her that we should be prosperous and able to purchase her wine and her silks. Italy, certainly, is not for war; and Austria to her honour, has long been an influence making for peace. As to Germany, I can speak for all the great commercial cities. They know, as we do, that the main interests of Germany are the same as ours; that peace is most important for each of us; and that war, however it might end, would be disastrous to both. Moreover, the unrest in Europe, the spread of socialism, the ominous rise of anarchism, is a warning to the Governments and governing classes that the condition of the working classes in Europe is becoming intolerable, and that if revolution is to be avoided some steps must be

  1521
  taken to increase wages, reduce the hours of labour, and lower the prices of the necessaries of life.
  These objects can only be effected in one way, by reducing the military and naval expenditure. Both they and we have to consider, not merely the direct, but the indirect, effect of these enormous armaments. The anxiety and uncertainty created necessarily tend to paralyse industry and drive manufactures into more peaceful regions. The late Mr. E. Atkinson, the eminent American economist, said—
  "The burden of national taxation and militarism in the competing countries of Europe, all of which must come out of the annual product, is so much greater that, by comparison, the United States can make a net profit of about five per cent, on the entire annual product before the cost of militarism and the heavy taxes of the European competitors have been defrayed. Such is the burden of militarism which must be removed before there can be any competition on even terms between European manufacturers and those of the United States in supplying other continents and in sharing in the great commerce of the world."
  Moreover, since he wrote, the burden of militarism has become much more onerous. Let me ask your Lordships to consider the relative positions and policies of America and Europe. I do not say that America is employing her time and manhood to the best advantage. Her fiscal system is devised to check the use and cultivation of her millions—not of paltry acres, but of square miles of virgin soil, in order to encourage the development of manufactures which she could purchase more economically from us; she endeavours to divert her people from the natural and healthy life of the country, and concentrate them in great cities. These mistakes, no doubt, are retarding—they cannot prevent—her progress.
  But what are we doing in Europe? We have, no doubt, some great advantages. Europe ought to make hay while the sun shines. We have no reserves of virgin soil. Our coal will not, indeed, be exhausted just yet, but we have to go deeper and deeper for it, so that it becomes more, and more expensive; our tin is practicallv exhausted, our copper approaching an end, even our iron ores are not inexhaustible. Under these circumstances we ought to be laying up for the future. So far from
  1522
  this, Europe is a great military camp, always under arms; we have no peace, only an armistice; eternal war with; unlimited expenditure, only, happily, I without bloodshed. But the result is that instead of accumulating capital for our children, we are piling up debt; instead of bequeathing them an income, we are leaving them overwhelming responsibilities.
  Look at the contrast between Europe and America. The United States have a population of 90,000,000. That of Europe is about 350,000,000, nearly four times as great. The area is about the same, but the expenditure of Europe on armaments is over £250,000,000 sterling, that of the United States is £40,000,000, and the number of men under arms is 4,000,000 against 100,000 in the United States, or forty times as great. It is obvious, therefore, that our European manufacturers are heavily handicapped as against those of the United States, and, unless something is done, will be so more and more. Our expenditure on the Army, which ten years ago was under £18,000,000, is now over £29,000,000, showing an increase of over £11,000,000, or more than half as much again. Surely we might here make a great reduction.
  As regards the Navy, Mr. Lefevre, in a very interesting article in the Contemporary Review for February, gives the effective strength of our Navy as in round numbers, 1,050,000 tons, that of France being 398,000, and of Germany 286,000, so that our strength is, in round numbers, 370,000 tons more than that of France and Germany combined. The Times also recently published (April 23rd) a most interesting article on the German Navy. The result they came to was that after making all reasonable allowances —
  "The overwhelming superiority of British Naval strength to that of Germany remains incontestable."
  Now all three nations are going to an enormous expense, and if our respective programmes are carried out the results will be:—Great Britain, 1,928,000 tons; France, 779,000; and Germany 744,000; giving us a surplus of 400,000 tons. We shall have added 880,000 tons and they will have added 840,000, and our respective positions will be almost the same as they are now. What portentous, I might almost say what wicked, waste! Russia, I understand, is about to spend

  1523
  £50,000,000 on her Navy. If she joined in some arrangement she might save half of the outlay; and how much better this would be for her. Surely we might agree on reductions which would leave our relative strength unaffected, and save all three countries many millions of money, besides an immense annual diminution of expense. Moreover, as the late Lord Salisbury wisely pointed out, these gigantic armaments greatly increase the risk of war. This seems rather a matter for amicable arrangement between the four countries than for The Hague Conference.
  I have dealt hitherto with the question from a material and business point of view. But it has another and higher aspect. The present position of Europe is a disgrace to us, not only as men of common sense, but as professing Christians. If the suggestions thrown out by the Prime Minister are accepted, it would be an enormous boon to the people of Europe; it would, I believe, save the Continent from drifting into revolution and misery. To us in England, if perhaps to a slightly less extent, it would also have most beneficial consequences. It would diminish the burden of taxation, it would lighten the hours of labour, it would raise wages, and lower the price of necessaries. Of course, it is possible that our overtures might be rejected. But, even if they are, we shall feel that we have done our best. We shall have held out the olive branch; it will be a failure, but an honourable, even glorious, failure. I do not, however, entertain such a fear. I have too much confidence in the common sense and conscience of Europe. And if we succeed, it will be one of those cases in which peace has its victories as well as war, and we shall confer an incalculable boon, not only on our own people, but on the whole world.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: My Lords, I think no apology is due on my part for venturing to intervene on such a subject as this. The noble Lord who brought it forward dwelt, as he had a right to do, upon the grave commercial and financial burdens which are closely associated with the armaments of Europe, and he reminded us that these burdens pressed heavily on all industries and produced that apprehension and mutual
  1524
  suspicion which I think will be admitted on all sides to be one of the great causes for the apparent failure, as it were, of commercial success. For nothing, I understand, is so sensitive as capital, and nothing is so likely to effect the sensitiveness of capital as the existence of mutual suspicions and alarms.
  But I venture to enter on this question from a different standpoint, for I cannot pretend to possess what the noble Lord possesses in such a high degree, a deep and large acquaintance with the financial and fiscal aspects of the question. I always find myself on this question in the position of not being able to agree with the extremists on either side. It so happens that on all questions; where human beings feel strongly there will be those who are inclined to look Duly from one standpoint, and therefore to exaggerate the value of the particular standpoint which they adopt. There are those who clamour at all times for what is called "Peace at any price." I venture to say that I cannot identify myself with those. It seems to me that whatever view one takes of history or of existing conditions no man can look back or look around without seeing that it is quite conceivable that cases may arise in which war may be necessary.
  Facts are stern things, and it becomes men who possess common sense to face facts; but the facts, stern and strong as they are, are allied with something else, and that is the recognition that there does often come a time in the history of nations when the nation has to choose the lesser of two evils, and when all brave men accept war as the lesser of two evils. Not one of us will do other than endorse that view when we recall the struggles of Holland in the days of Spanish tyranny. There are many who will say that the condition also applies to the sanguinary struggle between the Northern and Southern States of America; and who can doubt but that England did good service to the civilised world when she withstood the Napoleonic tyranny?
  There are events in the history of the world when the soldier who has stood in the front of the battle field has not merely been a patriot but a citizen of the world and a protector of on-coming civilisation. Just as I recognise that there may be circumstances in which

  1525
  war is necessary, so I readily recognise that it is the bounden duty of all upon whom national responsibility devolves to protect the interests of the nation committed to their care and to have due regard to the sufficiency of armaments. It would be unwise, nay, would it not be almost criminal, to forget these natural find necessary considerations which are needful to make protection sufficient? Therefore I for one would venture to say all honour to that patriot soldier who goes about among his fellow countrymen and says, "It is indispensable, if you are to maintain your freedom and your present position, that you should be adequately and efficiently armed."
  But, while I make these admissions, I would also say that these two positions do not cover the whole question. It may be true that war is sometimes necessary, and it may be the duty of Governments to take care that the armaments are sufficient; but there is another aspect wider than that of merely national interest, and it is the aspect of the duty which a nation owes to the world at large and the duty which every civilised and intelligent Government owes to the progress and advance of civilisation. Life is not merely made up of stern facts; and while we are obliged, from the standpoint of stern facts and common sense, to admit the great possibilities of risk and peril, that is no reason why we should fall into what I may call the prosaic error of forgetting that we are gifted with the power of foresight and have imposed upon us the duty of preparation for the great future which we hope, through our instrumentality, may be more pleasant than the period in which our lot is cast.
  There is such a thing as an ideal aspect of the world, and it is to the ideal that our attention should be constantly directed. The statesman no less than the artist needs to be sustained by ideal considerations. If we think of the ideal, may we not picture to ourselves an age when those armaments will no longer be necessary, and when, instead of withdrawing one out of every five of the real breadwinners to stand as an armed soldier and therefore rendering him a non-producer from an economic point of view, the standing armies and navies should be reduced to a kind of minimum which would represent only the necessary police,
  1526
  as it were, of the world? The industries of the world would then flourish, its productive power would then increase, and in every hamlet, as in every land, there would be a sense of security, peace, and happiness.
  It is an ideal picture. I venture to say there are three ways in which we may treat an ideal. We may treat it with the enthusiasm of those who forget facts and begin to live as if the ideal age had come. On the other hand, are they any wiser who disdain the ideal altogether and live simply in the presence of hard facts? Surely the true way of dealing with an ideal is to say that, as God has given to every man a place in the world where his character is formed by experience and the stern discipline of facts, so also is man endowed with the means of conceiving an ideal towards which he can work. There is in every artist's mind the picture which never was painted and never will be painted. So there ought to be in the mind and imagination of the statesman an ideal picture which, perchance, may never be painted in his time, but which, nevertheless, will form the standard towards which he desires to approximate, and towards the realisation of which he desires to lead the people entrusted to his care. Thus I say that the ideal stands for much, and in this case it is a thing towards which approach has been made.
  Public opinion has pronounced over and over again in favour of the settlement of national disputes by arbitration, by the mediation of a friendly nation, or by the inclusion in treaties of clauses which afford the opportunity of consideration when questions of friction and dispute arise. Almost every legislature in Europe has passed a resolution in favour of something of the kind. Not only in England in 1873, but in Italy, in Sweden, in the United States of America, in Holland, and in Belgium within the two or three short years between 1873 and 1875 resolutions were passed in favour of this, and later other nations followed suit. Though wars were numerous in the last century, yet it remains true that a great many have been averted by arbitration. Between 1820 and 1830 there were only three cases in which disputes were settled by arbitration; but I think I am right in saying that between 1880 and

  1527
  1890 there were as many as twenty-one. The movement has been accepted and the principle applied to such cases as the Duchy of Luxembourg, the Alabama claims, Crete, the Alaska boundary, and, recently there was the Algeciras Conference. The instinct which found expression in the Resolutions of the Legislature has found confirmation in the practical action of the civilised nations of the world, so that the ideal to which I have referred is a thing towards which men with patient steps are slowly advancing.
  What is more remarkable still is the fact that clauses in treaties arranging for arbitration in cases of dispute have shown the determination of nations to provide, if possible, against anything like a hostile outbreak. Wars often arise from the sensitiveness of national honour, but, if a nation has committed itself beforehand to an arbitration clause in a treaty, then it stands consonant with its honour that it shall first consider, and it is not as it were urged on to war by a sense of honour, but honour stands in the way of war, and to have brought honour on the side of peace is no small achievement. It does more. It gives that invaluable factor in all questions of dispute—time for consideration, during which those extravagant passions may cool down which in themselves are a. source of peril to international peace.
  In the attitude we are taking up we stand hand in hand with men of wise judgment and wide experience. The noble Lord who initiated this discussion quoted what the late Lord Salisbury said, and it is true that he pointed out to those whom he addressed at Hastings in 1892 that just as the system of settling quarrels by duels had been put an end to, so it would be the duty of nations to see that, by methods of international understanding, international wars were put an end to. In the same sense the present Prime Minister has spoken. And in so speaking those statesmen ranged themselves alongside the philosophers of the world. In other words, we have on our side philosophers who have reflected deeply on the matter, statesmen who have had practical experience, and the legislatures of the world who have pronounced in favour of arbitration.
  If it is true that there has been an approximation to the realisation of the
  1528
  ideal, upon whom does the responsibility rest to carry forward the movement? I venture to say, without any hesitation, that the responsibility falls with its heaviest weight upon those great nationalities which are most deeply imbued with the ideas of the highest civilisation. The world is made up of nations in various stages of growth. To some, ideals of this sort would be quite impossible, but when we remember those nations to which the noble Lord who introduced this subject alluded, when we remember the United States of America, when we remember Germany, when we remember France, when we think of our own country—do we not realise that every one of these countries has been inter-penetrated with what I may call the highest and noblest ideas of civilisation? Are not these the nations, then, to lead the way? If they have led the way in the civilisation of the world is it not for them to lead the way also towards the realisation of that age of peace by inaugurating, if it be possible, some League of Peace?
  In 1902 an American professor had an interview with a German historian, and the subject of discussion was the importance of a friendly understanding between Germany, America, and England, and as the American professor was leaving the presence of the old historian he said to him—
  "Preach that doctrine far and near whenever and wherever occasion allows."
  That is the sentiment I should like to hear from all those upon whom the responsibility of government rests. Every civilised nation should endeavour, as far as possible, to preach the doctrine of a friendly understanding with the other nations of the world. In this way we shall be able to realise in its noblest sense the ideal of which I have spoken It may not be that the present generation shall see the dawn of the golden age of perpetual peace, but we shall see at least men drawing nearer one to another, prejudices disappearing, and such a consciousness of peace and security falling upon the minds of the people that, although war may not be altogether abolished, men may sit down by their vines and their fig-trees with the certainty of enjoying a prolonged peace.
  LORD SANDERSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies to the Question addressed to him, I think it may not be inconvenient to him that I should say something of the more recent diplomatic history which has come under my own experience. It will relieve him of a somewhat unpleasant task, because it is not very encouraging. In 1898, the Emperor of Russia addressed a Circular to all the Powers proposing a Conference for the purpose of considering means of securing peace and of reducing or limiting armaments. All the Governments, I believe, replied in a sympathetic manner, but during the few months which elapsed before the meeting of the Conference several of them, including the Russian Government itself, made a not inconsiderable increase in their already large armaments. Whether they did that in order to have something to reduce upon I do not know, but reduction did not follow.
  The Conference met and appointed three Commissions, one of which was to examine the methods of limiting or reducing armaments. A number of proposals were made to that Commission; they were carefully examined, but in the end the Conference was unable to adopt any of them. It was found impossible to devise a formula which should be free from ambiguity and apply fairly to all Powers alike, and it was found equally impossible to devise means of ensuring the observance of any agreement without an amount of control and interference to which few, if any, of the Powers were inclined to submit. The Conference, therefore, was compelled to content itself with recommending the subject to the consideration of the Governments concerned as one of great importance to the moral and material welfare of the human race.
  I am not aware that the consideration which the Governments were able to give to it have led to any practical results. I think if you look at these large armaments you will find that they are not so much the consequence of any conscious aggressive intentions as of a general feeling of insecurity, of an impression that Europe is in a state of what is scientifically called unstable equilibrium, and of a determination to be prepared for all risks. The German
  1530
  military delegate at the Conference summed up the matter by saying that each country had created its own system of national defence in accordance with its history and traditions and its geographical situation, and that it would be very difficult to substitute an international agreement for these purely national institutions. It seems to me that this impression of insecurity cannot be removed merely by diplomatic assurances.
  Something has been done by The Hague Conference, because it facilitated the means of referring international differences to mediation and arbitration. It is only seven years since that Conference terminated, and seven years is a very short period in the history of nations; but already those methods have been used on more than one important occasion and with signal success. I do not myself see how any further step in advance can be taken without a strong national movement in some, at least, of the more important military countries towards a reduction of armaments and practical proofs of peaceful intentions, and some evidence of the earnestness and the permanence of that feeling. Whether the time is yet ripe for that it is difficult to say. I feel that we may confidently leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose calm, firm, unobtrusive policy has already rendered such important services to the cause of European peace.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, my noble friend opposite has asked me, as representing the Foreign Office in this House, whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps to carry out the suggestion made by the Prime Minister in a speech on December 22nd last year, with regard to the policy of huge armaments, and, if so, whether there are any Papers which can be laid on the Table of the House. In the first place, I would point out that the first sentence in the speech of the Prime Minister to which my noble friend has called attention is simply the statement of a fact which, alas! none of us can deny—namely, that the existence of these enormous armaments in Europe does feed and encourage the belief in the minds of the people of the world that force is

  1531
  the remedy which must be looked to for the settling of international differences. Therefore I am not inclined to think that any debate would be likely to arise in regard to that, taken as an isolated proposition. It is rather when we come to the second half of the extract which my noble friend has placed upon the Paper that we enter upon the ground of actual politics and debate.
  My noble friend asks me whether His Majesty's Government, in the short time in which they have been in office, have been able to take any actual steps towards realising a better condition of things with regard to armaments than now exists in Europe. In reply, I would in the first place remind your Lordships that the speeches made by Ministers when the Army and Navy Estimates were placed before the House of Commons, and the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, clearly show that the mind of His Majesty's Government has already been turned to this question. It is our hope—indeed it is our confident belief—that next year, unless events take quite an unlocked for and unfavourable turn in Europe, we shall be able to propose some reductions in expenditure, by means of changes in war establishments, which may tend somewhat in the direction of the wishes of the noble Lord. As a matter of fact, the Naval Estimates—and this is not owing to the policy of His Majesty's Government alone, it is quite as much due to the policy of their predecessors in the last eighteen months of their period of office—tho Naval Estimates, as compared with those of two years ago, show a large and substantial reduction, a reduction of, I think, something like £5,500,000. Of course, it is not to the representative of the Foreign Office in this House that your Lordships look for information as to details.
  My noble friend Lord Sanderson, to whom everyone who has been at any time connected with the work of the Foreign Office owes such great obligations, and who spoke with an unrivalled experience of affairs, indicated some of the difficulties which have so often driven those who aim at the ideal in this matter back on to the hard rocks of the practical. It has seemed to me, looking back over the history of this very attractive question, that the cause of disarmament has suffered at different times from certain difficulties
  1532
  which, till comparatively recently, seemed to make progress almost hopeless. There was at first a tendency on the part of those who urged schemes of disarmament to evolve their plans in such forms as to bring upon themselves the reproach of being unpractical men, and in consequence the cause of disarmament and of arbitration fell into evil repute.
  The right reverend Prelate alluded to schemes of great and eminent men in Germany. I am not, perhaps, alluding to these so much as to those plans of universal disarmament which were very frequently put forward at the time of the French Revolution, and put forward under circumstances which could not appeal to this country. When, for example, tho once celebrated Abbé Gregoire invited the French Convention to declare that—
  "A nation should act towards others as she desires that others should act towards her;"
  and that—
  "The individual interest of a nation is subordinate to the general interest of the human family,—"
  it was not possible for persons then living in England to overlook the fact that the countrymen of Abbé Gregoire were engaged at that time in a war with this country, and were doing their best to annex the territory of their neighbours; and therefore they were inclined to think that the worthy Abbé might have kept for domestic consumption, or, at any rate, applied his proposals at home before inviting other nations to join in them.
  Then there has always been the difficulty to which my noble friend who spoke just now alluded—the difficulty of finding what may be called a unit of disarmament. This is a military question, and I would like to read to your Lordships a short extract from a speech by Colonel Gross de Schwarzhoff, the German military representative at the Hague Conference, which is to be found in the Blue-book on the Peace Conference which was laid before your Lordships' House. Colonel Gross de Schwarzhoff said—
  "He considered that the question of effectives could not be discussed by itself as there were many others to which it was in some measure subordinated, such, for instance, as the length of service, the number of cadres, whether existing in peace or made ready for war, the amount of training received by reserves, the situation of the country itself, its

  1533
  railway system, and the number and position of its fortresses. In a modern army he considered that all these questions went together, and that national defence included them all. Each people, he continued, had created its own system of defence, in accordance with its history and traditions, and with due regard to its geographical situation, its duties, and surrounding conditions."
  Whether we think that those difficulties can be overcome or whether we think them insuperable, which was rather the argument of the German representative, I am inclined to think we shall all at least agree that they are difficulties that we must respect; and if I had any doubt at all on the question I would feel none after having read, as I have, the correspondence which exists in the Foreign Office between one of our greatest foreign Ministers, Lord Clarendon, and one of our greatest ambassadors, Lord Lyons, just before the Franco-German war.
  When it was the wish of Lord Clarendon, who was a man quite able to look to the ideal, but who also had an eminently practical mind, to take in hand this question of European disarmament, especially as between France and Prussia, various communications passed between him and Lord Lyons, and there is one short passage to be found in one of Lord Lyons' despatches which places in a very clear light those difficulties to which my noble friend alluded. Lord Lyons, in a communication to Lord Clarendon on January 25th, 1870, wrote as follows—
  "The present Ministers were, Count Daru said, disposed to reduce the annual contingent in France from 100,000 to 80,000 men; in fact, to make a reduction of one-fifth. But how could they propose this, when Prussia had 900,000 men virtually under arms? France was inclined to set a good example, but would Prussia follow it? He had, he confessed, a hope that the establishment of Parliamentary Government in France might not be without its influence; that the people of Germany, seeing that the French nation had taken the management of its own affairs into its own hands, might also insist upon exercising a control over the inordinate military establishments which entailed so great an expense in men and money."
  Nearly thirty-six years have gone by since that was written, but, with very slight alteration of names and places, it indicates the exact difficulties which any British Minister would have who, at this moment, approached foreign Powers; and, indeed, I have shown your Lordships that when the question came forward at the last Hague Conference they were brought up again in very clear and able language
  1534
  by the distinguished man from whose speech I quoted an extract from a few moments ago. We know, of course, that the wishes of Lord Clarendon were dashed to the ground, that the great French Statesman, Count Daru, with whom he was negotiating, was turned out of office and was succeeded by one who had not these ideas so much at heart, and we know that shortly after Lord Clarendon himself, to the great loss of this country, passed away.
  There is yet another difficulty, and I am obliged to go over these points because I do not think the right rev. Prelate quite sufficiently realised them. There has always been, not only the difficulty of finding a unit of disarmament, but also the great difficulty of finding the tribunal, of fixing upon an arbitrator, as it were, who should decide as to whether or not the unit of disarmament, if one had been found, was really honestly and efficiently applied by all the contracting Powers. It was to that difficulty that the schemes to which the right rev. Prelate alluded as the work of great German philosophers and jurists were directed. But were they successful?
  It is a curious fact that the most ingenious of all these schemes was intimately connected with the Electress Sophia of Hanover, the illustrious Princess the founder of the Royal Family which reigns over this country. It was an attempt to form a European Court, founded upon a very curious plan, devised by the jurist and philosopher Leibnitz who enjoyed the patronage of the Electress. It was proposed, as the right rev. Prelate will remember, that all the Christian nations of Europe should reduce their religions to a common denomination. It was a sort of intelligent anticipation, if I may say so, of the Cowper - Temple clause. Louis XIV. was to be some kind of Protestant and the Electress Sophia was to become some kind of Catholic. The Western Powers were all to reduce their armies, and the reduced contingents were then to go eastward and march on the Turk and turn him out of Europe; and it may be interesting to recall that in the plan for the distribution of the Sultan's dominions Egypt was to be given to Louis XIV. Fortunately the Electress Sophia at

  1535
  the last moment preferred the Protestant succession and the Crown of England, though possibly she did not foresee that her descendants would become Protectors of Egypt also.
  Your Lordships will see that all these ideal plans have run aground upon the rocks of practical difficulties. The generation in which we live has, therefore, wisely, I think, rather furled its sails and attempted to aim less high, but I am inclined to think that it has obtained more. Successive Foreign Ministers—and we on this side of the House can afford to pay a tribute to those who have gone before us —have succeeded in carrying tho principle of arbitration, incorporated in treaties, exceedingly far, as compared with anything which was the hope of those who were living twenty-five years ago. The Hague Conference in itself represents an immense step forward, because it has left behind it a tribunal whose jurisdiction, we may hope, will gradually be extended. I venture to class in the same order of ideas those great improvements in the law of nations which tend to humanise and limit the operations of war. The example of those who have gone before is naturally that which we desire to follow.
  There are practical difficulties to be surmounted, but I see no reason why we should despair of approaching in some distant future the ideal to which the right rev. Prelate invited us. In 1883 the first treaty containing an arbitration clause was signed by this country. It was the commercial treaty with Italy. I had the honour to hold the same office at that time which I now hold, and I remember that some persons then thought that even so humble a step as that was not a practical one and that nothing would come of it. But from commercial treaties the arbitration clause has extended to other treaties, and finally there is now what might almost be called a model arbitration treaty which the noble Marquess opposite succeeded in signing with a great number of European Powers. The smaller Powers are all coming into line. Surely that represents great and substantial progress.
  As a Power which is not scheming any act of aggression against any other Power, we have through the Prime
  1536
  Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs expressed our hope that a better state of things may gradually be produced, and we have already set an example by the reduction of expenditure. We may therefore appeal to the Governments of Europe to follow the example we have set and to join us in the aspirations that were expressed by the Secretary of State a few nights ago.
  A German newspaper the other day, a paper of weight and authority, said that disarmament was easier for countries on what is termed the periphery of the European State system than for those at the centre. I am not prepared to dispute that. The military system of Prussia originated, with a generation in which the older men had seen Berlin occupied by a Russian army in 1760 and the younger men had seen it occupied by a French army after the battle of Jena. Providence has mercifully spared us such visitation and it is therefore not for us in these matters to sit in judgment upon others less favourably situated.
  But we can at least protest in a friendly spirit against any European Power thinking it necessary to increase her burdens yet further and to add yet more to her armaments under a mistaken apprehension that we are planning some great act of aggression by sea, either in the near or more distant future; and we note with satisfaction and reciprocate the friendly language used in the German Parliament on Wednesday. Therefore it is that with such verbal alterations as the moment and place required, I to-night endorse here the words of the Secretary of State in the House of Commons the other night.
  As in the time of the late Government, Lord Goschen, when First Lord of the Admiralty, made a public invitation on behalf of the Government to other countries to respond to the feeling of this country for a reduction of naval establishments, so now we trust that this debate in your Lordships' House may be taken as an invitation to other countries to respond to our feeling in favour of encouraging the reduction of armaments, and we decline to be precluded from making a proposal ourselves at The Hague Conference if the times and seasons are favourable, as we trust that, under Divine providence, they may be.
  LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, before the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition addresses your Lordships, as I imagine he will, on behalf of the Party opposite, I should like in a few words to call attention to one very curious omission which it appears to me has been made in the course of this debate. The debate has proceeded hitherto upon the general questions which arise with regard to our enormous armaments both here and abroad, and the growing desire for arbitration and conciliation in the relations between nations; but neither the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of His Majesty's Government nor the noble Lord who for so long a period occupied an important position at the Foreign Office has made the smallest allusion to an event of great importance—namely, the approaching meeting, as we all hope, of the second Hague Conference.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I did refer to it, and in a marked manner.
  LORD WEARDALE: It is true that the noble Lord gave us a quotation of part of the speech of the Secretary of State in the House of Commons which contained a reference to that meeting, but it seems to me that that is a capital point on which we ought to dwell at the present moment. I do not know at whose invitation, but I assume at the invitation of the Emperor of Russia, there will be held, we understand, in the course of next year the second Hague Conference; and it is because I desire to direct the attention of the Government to the important issues that must be raised in the course of that Conference that I have ventured to intervene now with a very few words. The first Hague Conference, called together on the initiative of the Tsar, did, I think, a very great work for humanity, because it resulted in the estsblishment of The Hague tribunal and the setting up of a permanent body to which all international difficulties can be, and I hope will be increasingly, referred. But the first Hague Conference was a casual gathering assembled at the invitation of a great potentate, not a regular institution which was to meet automatically at certain periods. I hope that the next Hague Conference will assent to this proposition, that it is to be regarded
  1538
  no longer as a casual meeting but as a permanent institution, to be called together automatically at certain periods for the purpose of continuing the work of civilisation and of peace.
  I further hope that The Hague Conference will establish a permanent Committee, or, rather two permanent Committees, one of which shall carry on the work of the codification of international law, which at present is done, or more correctly stated, assumed to be done, as we all know, by irresponsible bodies, and that it will also set up that very Court to which allusion has been made, a Court of military control which shall be able to supervise the whole question of the limitation of armaments. It has been said by Lord Sanderson that we must wait until one of the great Powers of Europe leads the way in the diminution of armaments. If we wait till then we may wait for ever. We must take the opportunity of the next Hague Conference, not only to act ourselves, but to bring in with us other Powers; and we most certainly should have the active co - operation of the United States in making a determined appeal to the second Hague Conference to try to bring about some limitation in the enormous growth of naval and military armaments throughout the world.
  It is said that the Governments of different countries find great difficulty in initiating or carrying out any proposal of that kind; but behind all Governments in these days there stand the people, the tax-payers. The taxpayers of Germany, of France, of this country, and of all the great military nations have to bear the terrible burdens of the immense and bloated armaments and I say, as the Prime Minister has wisely said on a memorable occasion, that it is our business, standing at the head of civilisation, to put ourselves in the forefront of this great movement and try and bring about at the next Hague Conference that League of Peace which I believe will respond to the popular feeling of the world, and overcome all the difficulties which have been alluded to in the matter of the limitation of armaments.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I only rise to say one word in reply to part of the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. Napoleon, who is

  1539
  admitted to have been one of the ablest of men, imposed on Prussia in 1807 a Treaty of Peace by which she was not to have more than 42,000 men. For several years the French Army remained in occupation in Prussia, and notwithstanding all the opportunities Napoleon and Marshal Davoust had of supervising Prussia, when that country at last threw down the gauntlet in 1813, she put over 220,000 men in the field, and although she lost more than 42,000 men killed in battle, she had large armies opposite Paris in 1814 at the conclusion of hostilities. That shows how impossible it is to limit armaments when a nation will not submit to the limitation.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have only a few words to add to the interesting conversation which has taken place this evening. My noble friend who initiated it gave utterance to a feeling which I think must have been present for a long time past, not only to the mind of every Member of your Lordships' House, but to every citizen of this country. We know how intolerable the increase of these burdens is becoming, and we realise, as he realises, that not only are they hard to bear in the present, but that their existence tends to diminish the resources of the country and to make it more difficult for us in future times of emergency to respond as readily as we might wish to calls upon the public purse. But, my Lords, this question is after all, a practical one, and it is not one which can be solved by mere aspirations for more peaceful counsels and more moderate armaments. To what, then, can we look for relief? I think it is obvious that there are two directions and two directions only, in which we can look for an improvement in a condition of things which we all deplore.
  We can, in the first place, maintain our present policy, we can continue to take the precautions which we have hitherto thought it necessary to take, and we can at the same time economise in administration. We have been told again to-night that His Majesty's Government are able to hold out to us a definite prospect that they will be able to economise in administration. I wish them success. I think it too likely that in the past a great deal of public money has been unwisely spent in naval and military
  1540
  defences. That has been due, to my mind, mainly to this cause, that we have been in the habit of adopting rather too hurriedly what I might describe as the undigested advice of our naval and military experts. I do not think we have always realised sufficiently that these great problems of Imperial defence are not merely political problems, or naval problems, or military problems, but that they are all three; at once, and it is because we have failed to consider those problems in that more comprehensive manner that I believe we have in the past been led frequently to unnecessary expenditure, whether upon ships, armaments, or, more especially, upon coast defences, such, for example, as those costly works in the Channel Islands and at St Lucia which have more than once been referred to in this House.
  That state of things has to some extent, I venture to believe, been improved by the creation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to whose counsel it is due that before we left office we were able to make some reductions, at all events, both in our naval and in our military expenditure. I remember the time when that Committee was called into existence, and when in both of the great spending Departments there was an uneasy feeling that it might prove extremely embarrassing to them. That feeling has, I think, passed away, and both the Admiralty and the War Office now recognise that the Committee of Imperial Defence is a valuable ally and a protection to them in the administration of their affairs. I am glad to think that that Committee remains in existence, and that His Majesty's Government recognise the value of its advice.
  Some saving may then be possible by economy in administration, but my noble friend Lord Avebury contemplates something very different from that. What he desires is that there should be an alteration in the very foundation of our naval and military policy, and that we should in consequence of such an alteration diminish the precautions which we have up to the present time been in the habit of taking; and he bases this suggestion on the fact that in his belief a great change has arisen in the international situation. The noble Lord quoted at length the speech of the Prime

  1541
  Minister, in which Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman made a reference to what he described as the happier conditions now I prevailing, conditions to which he thought our armaments might for the future be adjusted.
  LORD AVEBURY: Will my noble friend allow me to explain? My argument was that France, Germany, and England are all about to increase their navies, and it appeared to me that we might therefore approach France and Germany and suggest that we should be relatively in the same position if we left our navies at the same strength as they are at present.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend made his meaning perfectly clear, and I will come to that in a moment. What I venture to submit to the House is that it is our duty to think twice before assuming that the time has really come when we may venture, in anticipation of the action of other Powers, to resort to any such general measure of disarmament as was apparently contemplated by my noble friend, and certainly must have been contemplated by the Prime Minister in the speech which my noble friend quoted.
  Our policy up to the present time has been, in the strictest sense, a policy of defence. We have no sinister designs upon the territory of other people. We have to provide for the safety of our own possessions, and, above all, for the protection of our great commerce; and it is principally in order to ensure the safety of our commerce that the large naval tonnage referred to is necessary, a tonnage which, unless I am mistaken, is very largely composed of cruisers. That expenditure is in the nature of insurance against risks, and so long as risks continue so long must we, as reasonable people, make our insurance bear some proportion to the risks we run.
  While I say that, I admit that the policy of adjusting our military and naval expenditure to the military and naval expenditure of other Powers has its obvious inconveniences. It is a policy which, if pursued, so to speak, to the bitter end, may lead to something like national bankruptcy, and the moment may come when the people of this country will prefer o eat their daily bread in
  1542
  fear rather than starve in security. But we have not arrived at that point yet. I admit, nevertheless that no greater blessing could be conferrod upon the peoples of the world, and no greater claim to an immortal gratitude could be established by Sovereign or statesman, than by the Sovereign or statesman who was able to induce the European Powers to make some abatement in those colossal armaments which are involving all of them in such immense expense.
  But, my Lords, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether this country is the country upon whom it is incumbent to take the first step towards that process of disarmament. The right rev. Prelate who spoke to us so eloquently this ovening is no longer in his place. If he were I should tell him that I am the last person in the world to make light of that ideal which ho held up for our admiration. I have myself in a very humble way endeavoured to pursue that ideal; but, like many other people, I have been discouraged by seeing how the shores of the promised land ever seem to recede into the distance of the political horizon.
  Now, my Lords, it is worth considering for one moment what are those happier conditions which my noble friend Lord Avebury and the Prime Minister have in their minds. We have, to begin with, treaties of arbitration, of which we may say, without fear of contradiction, that the late Government concluded a greater number than any other Government, either in this country or elsewhere. And we have practised what we preached, because we have referred some questions with practical results to arbitration. It attach the greatest value to the principle of arbitration. It creates a predisposition in favour of peaceful settlements; it prevents great Powers from fastening a quarrel one upon another for some purely trivial reason; and, as the right rev. Prelate told us so truly, when trouble is brewing the existence of the machinery of arbitration tends to give time, which, as he put it, so often has the effect of cooling down hot and angry passions. But, my Lords, treaties of arbitration will certainly not rid the world altogether of the danger of conflict, There are some questions about which no Power

  1543
  will go to arbitration; and in every treaty of arbitration that I have ever seen or had to do with there has been a clause in which it was expressly laid down that upon certain matters touching the vital interests or the honour of the contracting parties they would not consent to submit to arbitration.
  In addition to arbitration, you may look to international settlements of outstanding questions, such as the international arrangement which we were able to conclude with the French Republic. I attach almost more value to such arrangements than I do to treaties of arbitration, because they are, or may be, the means of getting rid of the cause of dispute in its origin instead of leaving it in existence to be dealt with afterwards by arbitration.
  I am glad to think that the conclusion of such arrangements acts as an encouragement to the conclusion of other similar arrangements between the Powers, and I am sure that we have all noticed with satisfaction the announcement which was made a few hours ago in regard to the hopeful relations now existing between the Government of this country and the Russian Government. We have made a good arrangement with France, and nothing could be more satisfactory than that it should be followed by an arrangement on the same lines with the friend and ally of France, the nation which is ruled by a Sovereign who has always shown by his actions how near to his heart is the cause of international peace. And, my, Lords, I may also express the pleasure with which I became aware that His Majesty's Government had been able to dispose of the long-standing and troublesome difference of opinion with the Congo State as to affairs in the Bahrel-Ghazal and on the Nile.
  There remains one other mode of diminishing the risk of international complications. Many countries, finding the burden of armaments so great that they are unable to bear it alone, have shared it with other Powers by means of alliances. I have always regarded these groupings of the Powers not as a menace to the peace of Europe, but as an additional security for it, because a single Power is very apt to think twice before it precipitately embarks on a quarrel if it knows that that quarrel will involve, not itself alone, but those with whom it is
  1544
  most closely connected; and your Lordships cannot have forgotten that, although in former days it was the policy of this country, I may almost say the pride of this country, to keep clear of such international contracts, we took a long step in a new direction in the alliance which we made with the Empire of Japan, an alliance which I have always defended, and shall always continue to defend, as one calculated to ensure peace, and to diminish the prospect of international strife.
  By all these means something can no doubt be done to diminish international tension, and to make it possible for the Powers to content themselves with a more moderate amount of naval and military preparation. I for one should rejoice if it were indeed the case that there now prevailed among those Powers who will meet next year at The Hague a feeling that the time had come, when on account of the greater serenity of the international atmosphere it was possible for them to desist from some, at all events, of the military and naval preparations which they have been in the habit of making. I should rejoice to see such a movement. I should rejoice to see that the Government of this country was able to take part in it. I should like to see that movement become so general and so popular that those Powers, whether it was one Power or a small number, who held aloof, would place themselves in a really invidious and untenable position; and I should be glad if His Majesty's Government or their representatives were able to contribute anything towards such a result.
  But, my Lords, I wish to make it perfectly clear that while those are my feelings I should most strongly object to anything in the shape of a contract by which the Government of this country bound itself to restrict either its naval or its military armaments within certain prescribed limits. There are fatal objections, to my mind, to any arrangement of the sort. Some of them lave been touched upon in the course of this debate. The difficulty of finding a formula applicable to tho varying conditions, political, naval, and military,of the contracting parties is almost insuperable But, besides that, supposing you have made your bargain, what means have you of deciding whether the contract

  1545
  has been observed? And supposing you are satisfied that it has not been observed, what means have you of enforcing your contract?
  Those seem to me to be practical objections, and I have never been told how it is possible to surmount them. It is notorious that there are innumerable ways of evading any international bargains of the kind which I have endeavoured to describe. But, even if other Powers were ready to submit to such ties, I feel extremely doubtful whether the people of this country would submit to them. We had an object lesson not very long ago. We entered into a Convention with regard to the prosaic subject of sugar, and under that Convention it will be remembered we set up a Standing Commission, to whom was to be entrusted the task of deciding whether the contracting parties, including ourselves, had or had not violated the terms of the Convention. Your Lordships will remember that no feature in the arrangement was so unpopular as that Commission, because we were told that we were handing over to a cosmopolitan tribunal the arrangement of the tariff of this country. If a small arrangement of that kind was unpopular, what would be said of an International Commission to whom we committed the task of saying to us, "You have too many battalions or too many ships, and we therefore call upon you at once to diminish your Army by such and such a number of men or your squadrons by such and such a number of vessels.
  This country must, in my humble opinion, retain its freedom to take whatever measures are necessary for the security of the Empire and of British commerce. It must be our principle to watch others and to follow their lead, rather than to diminish our precautions in anticipation of what they might possibly hereafter do; and I must say that if the disposition which my noble friend Lord Avebury detects in the tone of some of the great Powers really exists, it seems to me not unreasonable to expect of them that they will set us the example. Our Navy is so much more essential to us than any other Navy is to any other Power that we cannot afford to play tricks with a question which is really vital to the very existence of this country.
  1546
  As for The Hague Conference, my noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Sanderson, whose first participation in our debates we all welcomed, reminded your Lordships that the first Hague Conference was entirely unsuccessful in dealing with this question, and, unless I am very much mistaken—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—the invitations which were given to us to attend the new Hague Conference did not contain any reference at all to this question as one of those with which the Conference was intended to deal.
  If I may sum up what I desire to say I would do so in these words. Certainly let us show a readiness to discuss with other Powers the possibility of lessening our naval and military expenditure, and certainly let us support any Powers we find ready to give us a lead. But do not let us take any steps until it is established beyond all question that other Powers are not only in favour of doing what is desired, but have made a commencement in doing it. If this country is respected by other Powers it is not only because our diplomacy is straightforward and honest, not only because we are known to have no aggressive designs on other people, but because it is perfectly well understood that, much as we love peace, we are ready for war, and will take the risk of war if war becomes unavoidable. And, as to that, I would remind your Lordships that within the last few weeks we have been told by the Secretary of State for War that our Army, whatever its imperfections, was never more efficient than it is at present, and by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the British fleet never was in a position of greater comparative superiority. If that is true, let us think twice before, in pursuit of an ideal, no matter how attractive or how noble, we diminish the fighting efficiency of those two great services.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, we have had a very interesting discussion on a very important question, and we have heard many eloquent speeches and speeches of the greatest weight, like that from my noble friend on the cross Benches, Lord Sanderson. My noble friend who has just sat down expressed his belief that his Majesty s Government would be likely to take all steps that they could for reducing our military

  1547
  and naval expenditure so far as might be safe. That is precisely the policy which his Majesty's Government desire and intend to follow.
  I draw a great distinction between the two terms "diminution of expenditure" and "disarmament." The diminution of naval or military expenditure, or both, must be regulated by considerations of the condition and circumstances of each country. The people of the country are the best judges of what is necessary for their own security, and, for whatever may be required for that security, either at home or in foreign parts, it is, and always will be, the duty of the Government of this country to make ample provision. But when my noble friend, Lord Avebury, speaks of a policy of disarmament, he enters upon a totally different description of discussion. Disarmament cannot be entertained, as it seems to me, by any country, except with a fair and general understanding with other nations. We cannot enter upon anything which would deserve to be called disarmament so long as other nations maintain the great, and, if I may say so without disrespect, the exaggerated armaments which they maintain at the present time.
  I think the noble Marquess opposite cast undue doubt upon the possibility of entering into any consideration of this question of international armaments at the coming Hague Conference. My noble friend behind me, Lord Weardale, misunderstood what fell from my noble friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his excellent speech. The noble Lord seemed to think that Lord Fitzmaurice said nothing, or hardly anything, with respect to The Hague Conference. That is not the case. My noble friend referred to what had been said by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place. Your Lordships know the language that my right hon. friend used. He said in effect, "We do not hold ourselves in any way precluded from discussing this question at The Hague Conference if we should see fit to do so." To that we undoubtedly intend to adhere. If an opportunity should offer, if we should find the representatives of other nations ready to discuss this subject, we shall be prepared to do so. My noble friend who has just sat down said,
  1548
  "Let us follow their lead." I do not think that is necessary. We may follow their lead, or they may follow our lead, but we are not going to pledge ourselves that we will not give them a lead if the opportunity arises. That is quite consistent with what was said by the Prime Minister and what has been said by many successive ministers since the days of Lord Clarendon.
  We do most ardently desire, for the benefit of the world much more than for our own benefit, that the day should come when these vast armaments may be diminished; and, if we can do anything which is consistent with the maintenance of our own position, it would be our clear duty to do it if opportunity should offer. But we are not going to rush wildly into this question. We stand very much on a statement which was made in 1899 by my noble friend Lord Goschen in reference to this question of naval expenditure, and we look to seize, and seize with avidity, any opportunity which may come to us to promote the relief of the nations of the world by a general reduction of the present vast armaments. But we do not intend, in any course we may take, whether at home or at the Hague Conference or anywhere else, to do anything which would tend in the smallest degree to weaken the security which is necessary to the maintenance of the Empire.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day read for the House being put into Committee.
  Moved, "That the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill."—(The Earl of Elgin.)
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, before the Motion is put I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Paper, giving the Committee power to extend the Bill to include a declaration of the law relating to all marriages legal in the place in which they have been contracted, and recognised as valid in the United Kingdom. I should like to guard myself from its being supposed that the objections which I and others feel to this Bill, and which were so admirably expressed by several noble Lords the other night, and especially by

  1549
  Lord Halifax, will be removed in the smallest degree if the Instruction which I propose is carried; but it seems to me that, whether the Bill is on the whole satisfactory or not, it at least should be made a logical one, and I protest very strongly against legislation with regard to the marriage law dealing with that subject in a one-sided manner. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated the other night—I have not got his exact words, but I do not think I shall misrepresent him—that the law of this country recognised as valid all marriages contracted abroad or in the Colonies unless they were repugnant to the common religion of Christendom, if contracted by persons domiciled in the country whore those marriages were legal; that is to say, they were valid for all purposes except one, succession to real property. Now, if it be desirable to remove an exception which prevents the succession of the offspring of these marriages to real property, why do you select only one form of marriage, namely, marriage with a deceased wife's sister? The grievance which it is proposed to remove under this Bill is, I believe, an absolutely academic grievance. It has never been alleged in this House, so far as I have heard, that a child of a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was over prevented from succeeding to real property in this country.
  It appears that this marriage is selected because their happens to be a fancy for marriage with a deceased wife's sister in the Colonies and it has often been contracted. I have always protested against the counting of noses in the matter of the marriage law. I hold that if a marriage is lawful and right, either from a religious, moral, or social point of view, then that marriage should be allowed whether one person wants it or 500. On the other hand, if a marriage is wrong, either from a religious, moral, or social point of view, it does not matter how many people wish to contract: it the Legislature has no right to make it legal. In the same way, it appears to me that any man in the whole of our vast Empire after you have passed this Bill who is the offspring of another form of marriage legal in some of the Colonies—a marriage, we will say, with the niece of a deceased wife—has a definite grievance against you if he is left out of the four corners of your Bill.
  1550
  I quite appreciate the danger which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out of admitting marriages which are revolting to the conscience of Christendom, as some of the Hindu marriages to which the noble and learned Lord referred are, but, as I understood the definition which the noble and learned Lord himself gave, those marriages would be excluded because they would be repugnant to the common religion of Christendom. I contend that you should not legislate for one marriage only just as fancy dictates, and I urge that if you deal with this matter at all, all marriages that are according to the conscience of Christendom should be admitted within the four corners of the Bill.
  Moved, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the Bill to include a declaration of the law relating to all marriages legal in the place in which they have been contracted, and recognised as valid in the United Kingdom."—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, I hope the House will not accept the Instruction which has just been moved by the noble Duke. The noble Duke objects to the Bill because it is limited to one class of marriages, and he forthwith proceeds to endeavour to enlarge it very considerably. I am not going to argue the reasons for this Bill, but I may tell the noble Duke that this is not considered an academic question in the Colonies. It is, on the contrary, looked upon as a matter of very great importance, and it is one on which there is very strong sentiment. In several of the Colonies Acts have been passed which have been sanctioned by the Imperial Government legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister, and this Bill has been brought forward in order to enable the offspring of those marriages to secure full legal rights in this country. It is a very simple measure, and I hope we shall not commit the mistake of widening the scope of the Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I am afraid I cannot consent to the Instruction which has been moved by the noble Duke. I do not deny that

  1551
  a Bill could be drawn on the lines which the noble Duke indicates in his Instruction, but it would not be this Bill. I may at once say that wo did consider the alterative measure suggested by tho noble Duke and rejected it, and if I wanted a justification for that course I think I might find it in what took place on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Marquess opposite, Lord Salisbury, complained that we wore advocating a state of things in which everything that was enacted by Colonial Legislatures should have effect in the United Kingdom. That is the purport of tho Instruction moved by the noble Duke, but it is not the purport of the Bill which I have had the honour of introducing to your Lordships.
  The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out, on the Second Heading, that we deal in this Bill with one particular subject. We deal with the law which prevails over a great part of our Colonial Empire, and which has existed there for more than twenty years without, I think, any inconvenience or any scandal arising. But twenty years is not a very long time in which to bring about questions of succession to property or to honours such as are dealt with in this Bill. As the noble Earl who spoke last mentioned, the present state of things is regarded in the Colonies as an anomaly, and our Colonial fellow subjects are unanimous in their desire for this Bill.
  All that we propose in this Bill is to make a concession on the matter of succession to property. We do not deal in any way with the marriage law, and I ask the House to bear that in mind in voting upon the Instruction moved by the noble Duke. The most rev. Primate, who spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, as he always does, in both a cautious and moderate manner, said he strongly objected to changes in the marriage law in the direction of the particular marriage mentioned in this Bill; but he added that, on the statement which I had made of the intention of this Bill, he acquiesced in the change. That is the position I take with regard to this Bill. I ask your Lordships to agree to it, not as a change in the marriage law, but as a declaration of the law with a view to remedying a grievance with regard to succession to property and honours which is much felt in our Colonial Empire.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I feel bound, after the speech to which we have just listened, to call the attention of the noble Earl to the language of the Bill. The Bill begins with an allegation that it is for the purpose of removing doubts. I am not aware that on the particular subject in question there have been any doubts. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not suggest that there was any doubt on the question whether the offspring of a marriage not according to the law recognised in England could inherit real property in England. Again, I look at the Bill, and I find that it is a Bill, not to alter any law, but to declare the law. Is that accurate? I should have thought that if the object of the Bill is, as stated, to remove a grievance which is supposed to exist, it should not be to declare but to enact. It will be found in a moment that this is not a mere verbal objection but one of substance.
  The sole object of this Bill is to alter our law of inheritance to real property in the case of the particular marriage in question. But have the draftsmen done it? It is not part of my duty to attempt to amend the Bill for the Government. That is their responsibility; but I venture to think it would be difficult for any lawyer to say that this Bill removes a supposed grievance at all. I have already pointed out that it states that doubts have been entertained, and that it further purports to declare the law. Now, let us see what the rest of the Bill says. Clause 1 provides that where a man has, whether before or after the passing of this Act, married his deceased wife's sister, and at the date of the marriage each of the parties was domiciled in a part of the British possessions in which at that date such a marriage was legal, the marriage if legal in other respects shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, legal for all purposes within the United Kingdom. So it is at present. I am not aware that any part of that statement could be controverted. It is legal at this moment, and for all purposes.
  The status of the persons married is legally that of man and wife. The one question with which the Bill is supposed to deal—namely, the right of inheritance to reality in England—is not mentioned in the Bill from beginning to end. The right of inheritance to real property in

  1553
  England is not any defect as regards the marriage. If the view I take is the true view, then this Bill is waste paper. I will not do the thing you intend it to do. After the statement of the noble Earl that the sole object of the Bill is to remove this supposed grievance, I have thought it my duty to point out to the noble Earl that it does not accomplish its object.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replies I should like to say a word or two on what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury. The argument he addressed to your Lordships was not, I venture to think, quite relevant to the Motion which has been submitted by the noble Duke; but anything coming from my noble and learned friend of course deserves the attention of your Lordships. My noble and learned friend's first point was that there could be no doubt, and never had been any doubt, upon the question whether the marriage was in this country legal as regards the inheritance to property.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I said nothing of the sort. I said there never was any doubt on the question whether a person so born could inherit real property.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I would remind my noble and learned friend that this Bill was discussed in 1898 when he was on the Woolsack, and that my noble and learned friend Lord Esher expressed the opinion that the Bill was unnecessary. He said that it was quite clear to his mind that these persons could inherit; and my noble and learned friend will find that statement by Lord Esher reported. With regard to my noble and learned friend's second objection, I would advise the Lord Chancellor, if I may venture to do so, to listen to what Lord Halsbury has said and make perfectly clear what is the intention of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to give the children of these marriagos the right of succession to real property. The Bill provides that these marriages shall be legal for all purposes within the United Kingdom. That must include, I should think, succession to real property. But I agree that my noble and learned friend
  1554
  Lord Halsbury has rendered good service in calling attention to this matter, if there be any doubt as to the efficiency of the drafting. I do not think that the distinction between marriages with a deceased wife's sister in the Colonies and other marriages not valid in this country is quite appreciated. South Australia was the first Colony to pass an Act legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister. They had to enact it five times before the Imperial Government would give way. But the Imperial Government did then give way, and the law was ratified within that Colony. Since then fifteen other colonies have followed suit, and the Acts have all received the consent of the Imperial Government. These colonies now come as suitors pointing out to us that it was with the sanction of this country that these marriages were contracted, and asking that no stain of illegitimacy should exist. The Instruction moved by my noble friend would include all parts of the Empire. We have Crown Colonies in which polygamy is recognised.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But those marriages are not valid in the United Kingdom, and the noble Duke's instruction only affects such marriages as are valid in this country.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said that all marriages that were according to the conscience of Christendom were valid in this country for every purpose except one; and I ask that all such marriages should be included within the scope of the Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I accept the noble Duke's reading of his own Instruction, but is there any analogy between the two cases? In the one case the Colonies themselves do not wish to have any alteration made in the law, but in this particular case the grievance is taking place day by day. This is not by any means an academic question. In 1898, after the debate on this Bill, a man who had been present in the Stranger's Gallery spoke to me in the lobby as I vas leaving, and after referring in terms of satisfaction to the debate, he said—
  "Do understand why I object to this law. I object to it because it brings shame upon me and upon my child. There is one other person on whose behalf I object to this law still more. I object to it on behalf of that wife whom I

  1555
  married according to the laws you gave us. What has she done that she should be told she has borne an illegitimate child?"
  I could not tell him what she had done, and I do not think your Lordships could.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, in reply to what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury with regard to the removing of doubts may I say that I was under the impression that there had been a difference of opinion in this House between the late Master of the Rolls, Lord Esher, and Lord Davey on this point. I believe that Lord Esher stated that in his opinion a child of a marriage of this kind was entitled to succeed to real property in England, and that my noble and learned friend Lord Davey expressed a contrary opinion. I would remind the House that this is no new Bill. It was in existence before the present Government came into power; and the difference of opinion to which I have referred probably accounts for the insertion of the words "for removing doubts." The Bill proceeds to say that the marriage shall be legal for all purposes within the United Kingdom. Surely that must include succession to real property. I cannot see any ambiguity in the drafting, but, if I am wrong, the matter can be discussed in Committee. The noble Duke, by his Instruction, would be legalising certain marriages without being able to define them, and uncertainty is always undesirable especially in the law of marriage. When you say that a marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister shall he recognised as legal for all purposes you know exactly what you mean. But if you say that any marriage which is valid in the Colonies shall be valid here you enable every Colony in the British Empire to make laws which are saddled on you.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: If it is the sense of the House I will withdraw my Instruction.
  Instruction, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved an Amendment to insert the provision that
  1556
  nothing in the Bill should affect the obligations imposed on any clergyman by the laws ecclesiastical. He explained that the object of the Amendment was to clear up any possible doubt and prevent difficulties arising in the future. If, however, he was assured that the only effect of the Bill was to remedy a legal grievance, and that it in no way affected the laws ecclesiastical or the obligations of the clergy, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  " In Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the word 'Act' to insert the words 'provided also that nothing in this Act shall affect the obligations imposed on any clergyman by the laws ecclesiastical. "'—(Viscount Halifax.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe there is nothing in the Bill which affects the obligations imposed on clergymen by the laws of the Church; but I quite appreciate the noble Viscount's point, and I will endeavour to satisfy myself with regard to it before the Third Reading. I will tell the noble Viscount if I see any reason to alter my opinion.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: If the Bill does not affect tho laws ecclesiastical my Amendment would, of course, be superfluous. I am content not to press my Amendment at this stage, but to leave the matter as the noble and learned Lord has suggested.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Lord has met my noble friend fairly in the promise which he has made to look into this matter between now and the Third Reading; but I think your Lordships must have been struck with the amount of doubt there was in the Lord Chancellor's words. I hope that if he finds that as a matter of fact the Bill does affeet the ecclesiastical laws he will be the first to agree to the Amendment on the Third Reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My doubt is due to this fact, that I thought the Amendment had another reference until the noble Viscount was kind enough to explain to me a few minutes ago what his meaning was. The laws ecclesiassical are familiar to very few of us, but I think I know enough of them to be able to assure the noble Lord that

  1557
  this Bill does not affect those laws. But I should not like the noble Viscount to act upon an opinion of that kind without being quite sure, and I will therefore look into the matter between now and the Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill reported without Amendment to the House.

  ELECTIONS (MEETINGS IN SCHOOLROOMS) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be road 3a on Monday next.

  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be road 3a on Tuesday next.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.