It is not my intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill, so far as it is an attempt to apply the existing Law of Registration in Ireland to the actually qualified voters that will exist under the Franchise Bill; but I must call attention to the fact that Clause 3 of the Bill, which enacts that dispensary relief shall not in future be a disqualification for the franchise, is an entirely foreign element introduced into such a Bill. It has nothing, practically speaking, to do with the Registration Bill. I am not going into the merits of the question at present, or to say how far the clause is an advantage or a disadvantage. I only wish to take note of the circumstance that this Bill is not—as is the English corresponding Bill—a simple attempt to apply the Registration Law, as it stands, to the new circumstances that will arise under the Franchise Bill, and to point out that an effort is made by this Clause 3 to introduce a new principle of qualification and disqualification of voters in Ireland.

said, he wished to remind the House that the clause was moved twice in the discussion on the Franchise Bill, and that they were then told from the Front Bench that the Registration Bill would be the proper place for its introduction; and on that occasion no objection was offered by the Opposition. It was an absolute necessity that the clause should be introduced here. It was altogether hopeless for Irish Members to attempt to remedy their grievances by a separate Bill, amid all this press of Business, and wars and rumour of wars taking up so much time. This Clause 3 was the most valuable and essential part of the Bill; and without it two-thirds of the new voters would be practically disfranchised. It should be remembered that the greater part of the people of Ireland paid poor rates, and thus they contributed to this very fund which brought them medical relief. Some did not actually pay poor rates, perhaps; but then they paid it in the form of rent to the landlord, the landlord paying the actual rate. This was a system which English rule had encouraged. The dispensary system was a very good system in Ireland. The people had adopted it, and now it would be cruel in the extreme to disfranchise them because they had adopted the method which the Government had recommended to them. He wished to point out the distinction which existed between Ireland and England in this respect. In the latter place the people had doctors of various degrees. They could get their half-crown or five shilling doctor. He believed that every Irish doctor charged 20s. He did not know an exception. Passing away from this clause of the Bill, he would take exception to that clause in the Bill which cast the cost of registration upon the local rate. It was essentially an Imperial question, for it was owing to registration that they came to that House for an Imperial purpose. Though they liked it not, they were told that it was for the general interest of the Empire; and it was necessary for their coming there that there should be registration, and hence this was an Imperial question simply. There might be some argument in favour of throwing the cost upon the local rates if the Local Bodies had any power to keep down cost in this direction. This, however, was not so, for the whole scale was fixed by the Local Government Board, and the Local Bodies had no authority to alter it. All they had to do was simply to raise the money. The present local rates were burdened with half-a-dozen other taxes —such as that with regard to explosives —which were not really local rates at all. He was sure that if the Ministry would give this matter consideration, and take these burdens off the Poor Law altogether, they would confer a great benefit on the people.

said, he thought that this Bill, in its present shape, would give rise to endless litigation. Instead of leaving the Revising Barrister to state a case, if he was in doubt, the individual voter was to be allowed to go through the whole form of getting a rule nisi and going through the other stages. The 1st clause of the Bill was really a breach of the understanding which had been come to with the House, as it practically made the Franchise Act date back a whole year.

said, it seemed to him that this Bill had better have been confined to the question of registration, and not extended to the question of franchise. As he understood, the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law of Ireland with regard to registration with the law of England. As he understood the law of England, the receipt of medical relief was a disqualification for the franchise; yet this Bill proposed to make a different law for Ireland. He would deal with this point further in Committee. He thought it desirable to press on the Government the necessity for securing purity of registration in Ireland, and he would call their attention to what was now going on, and what was likely to go on. At a very recent meeting of the Athy Board of Guar- dians, a proposition was made that the persons to be appointed to make out the new lists of voters under the Franchise Act should be the local secretaries of the National League Branches in every parish in the union. It was pointed out that the ordinary course was to appoint rate collectors, whose public office would be likely to secure independence, or, at any rate, responsibility; and a very reasonable suggestion was made that the extraordinary course of appointing the secretaries of the National League should not be adopted without notice. This moderate idea was, however, scouted by the Guardians, and the Land League secretaries were appointed straight off. Now, if that were the way the extension of the franchise was to be carried out in Ireland, good-bye to the smallest chance of the Loyal Party having any representation in that House at all. The Local Government Board had power in the matter, and he had fixed responsibility on the Government by bringing the matter to their attention. He hoped an Amendment would be introduced in this Bill meeting such an abuse which, if attempted in England, would meet with the severest censure.

thought the matters which had been brought forward were all subjects for Committee, and he suggested that the hon. Member for Derry City should prepare an Amendment.

said, he did not think there would be any opposition in Scotland to this Bill, although there might be some disappointment on finding that it did not deal with certain questions connected with registration, which, he supposed, were considered to be of too contentious a nature. He only rose at present to remark that this Bill had only been circulated to Members this morning, and that, therefore, although he did not propose to take any objection to the second reading being passed to-day, he would like to suggest to his right hon. and learned Friend (the Lord Advocate) that there ought to be allowed an interval before taking the clauses in detail, in order that the various persons interested in the subject in Scotland might have an opportunity of examining the Bill and making suggestions upon it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife has touched on the reasons for which the Government do not propose to enter into the larger questions of registration to which he has referred. I think it was explained by the Prime Minister, and it has been more than once explained, that these Registration Bills were not intended to cover the whole ground of the questions bearing on that most important subject, but merely such parts of them as are essential to bring into speedy and effectual operation the Act for the Representation of the People, and accordingly this Bill has been limited to that. In regard to what my hon. Friend further stated, as to the Bill being only circulated to-day, I may repeat the explanation I gave before, that we thought it right, in a matter of so highly technical a kind, in regard to which it was very important to have the views of those who have practical experience of the framing of the Register, to communicate with the assessors in the largest and most populous counties in Scotland while the Bill was in draft. Accordingly, some delay has arisen in that respect; but I may state that, while I propose to put down the Bill for Committee to-morrow, and if an opportunity is offered to ask that you, Mr. Speaker, should leave the Chair, I shall postpone the taking of the clauses till next week, so that there will be time to have the Bill sent down to Scotland, and to have the views of those interested in it obtained. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with this explanation.

in rising to move the rejection of the Bill, said, of all the rapid surprises which had ever come under his observation this was far and away the most surprising; and he greatly regretted to find becoming infectious the habit so persistently pursued by those who sat in front of the hon. Gentleman—namely, that of placing measures before the House without offering any observations whatever in explanation of their purport. Here was a great, a grave, and an important question, whether the sale of liquor on Sunday throughout England should in a great measure be suppressed; and the Government, who were responsible for the conduct of Public Business, had their minds so occupied with foreign questions that they failed to give their supporters a hint to avoid wasting valuable time at this period of the Session, and in the midst of a war-impending crisis, in Pro- muting the discussion of Bills of a frag- mentary character. One Member ventilated his hobby by proposing legislation for Durham; another took Northumberland in hand; a third directed his attention to Cornwall. In point of fact, they had quite a plethora of those narrow-minded and exasperating schemes interfering with popular rights and, privileges. He was under the impression that the Bill which the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. T. Richardson) silently sought to pass through the House was one of those local county Bills—how could it be otherwise when DO explanation was given of its object? —but he now found that it was a general measure applying to the entire length and breadth of England, and of the most arbitrary character. It was a most disreputable mode of proceeding, and paying a very bad compliment indeed to the common sense of the House to ask it to accept such an important measure without offering one single argument in favour of the deteriorating and unjust alterations of the existing law for which he demanded Parliamentary sanction. Why should any trade or interest be perpetually harassed or vexed in this cruel manner? The law recognized the highly honourable but anxious occupation of the publican. On the faith of British law the licensed victualler devoted his energy, time, and capital to the carrying on his business in a respectable manner, yet they found that the trade was more harassed than any other by perfectly well-meaning Gentlemen bringing forward Bills of this description with the object, as they foolishly imagined, of preventing drunkenness. Men tried to signalize themselves, and some liked to appear at least better than other people. In this country there was a great deal of hypocrisy; but he was quite at a loss to know what were the arguments on which the hon. Member for Hartlepool, whose name, by the way, did not appear on the back of the Bill, sought to justify the legislation he now asked. It was nothing short of hypocrisy on the part of those who took a glass of drink, and had every comfort around them in their homes, good cellars filled with wines of the choicest vintage, comfortable clubs to go to when they pleased, not only on week days, but on Sundays at all hours of the day and night, to say that the labouring man or the hard-struggling clerk should not have the opportunity at reasonable hours of getting on the Sabbath whatever liquor or refreshment was required. He did not know what were the personal habits of the hon. Member for Hartlepool. He might be either a thorough abstainer or a moderate drinker; but, regarding him as an impersonal abstraction, he was driven to ask with what object he had brought forward this Bill? Some people, no doubt, were entirely opposed to the consumption of intoxicating liquors; but it should be remembered that there were others of an opposite opinion. In his view, it was little short of narrow-minded despotism for hon. Members, because they abstained themselves, to seek that those who moderately indulged should be placed in the same category by legal enforcement. Such an assumption of virtuous morality was neither more nor less than downright tyranny, based on an affectation of moral superiority, and a monstrous invasion of the rights of individuals. In the absence of explanation from the hon. Member for Hartlepool, he was driven to speculate and to look at this question as one which might be brought forward in the interest of those who were called total abstainers. But the hon. Gentleman possibly might be-long to those who thought temperate drinking permissible. If that were so, he appealed to him as a moderate drinker to know what right had he to lay down any rule as to the restriction of Sunday drinking? Beer was the Englishman's natural drink. Some time ago one of the Liquor Alliance Leagues offered several large prizes, ranging from £700 down, to the person who would produce the best non-alcoholic beverage to take the place of beer. In spite of those repeated and, as they were considered at the time, brilliant offers, the League never succeeded. There was no liquor so suitable, so palatable to the English taste, so pure, so invigorating, or so cheap as beer. It was, therefore, in his opinion, nothing short of absolute cruelty to deprive the public from getting beer when they required it on Sundays. The poor man was unable to afford laying in a stock of bottled beer, and malt liquor purchased on a Saturday night for consumption on Sunday lost its excellent flavour and became flat, if not tasteless. In fact, those who proposed such an arrange- ment displayed an utter ignorance of the national habits, and he was inclined to assume that the hon. Member for Hartlepool participated in that ignorance. At present public-houses on Sunday were regulated by law, and certain hours were fixed, both inside and outside the Metropolitan Police district, as well as throughout the country, for the sale of liquors. These rules and limits were arrived at after careful examination, and might be regarded as the result of compromise. He did not ask that public-houses should be kept open the whole of Sunday; but what he contended for was that there should be at seasonable periods ample time given for the purchase of beer, so that the comforts of an Englishman's family might not be in any degree either encroached upon or interfered with. On the principle of Christian charity, they ought to shrink from curtailing the pleasures of the thousands of young men, clerks and shopmen, in London who resided in lodgings. How often did they find the arrogance of science united with the fanaticism of religion? They knew how medical opinion changed on this subject of liquor. Some doctors prescribed a good deal of brandy as likely to benefit the patient. At other times they pronounced brandy to be poison. On one occasion the physician said it would be well for the patient to drink whisky; within 24 hours he declared it must not be touched. It need not be said that all over the world some form of exhilaration was required. The necessity and the habit of taking some stimulant was ingrained in many people's constitutions. They knew there was a virtue in generous liquor, and that it did them good and not harm. Were they to be put on the same level as persons who drank to excess for the mere sake of drinking, and simply because a number of fanatics drank nothing at all? Whichever of the latter two classes it was that was represented by the voiceless Gentleman who had charge of this Bill, he had very little respect for them. He should like to know what the hon. Gentleman would think if a Bill were brought in to compel him to drink so much liquor? The hon. Gentleman would doubtless say it was a terrible violation of private rights; but it would be only a fair counterpoise to the action of the teetotalers; for if A had a right to say that B should not drink at all, surely B had an equal right to say that A should drink a certain quantity. What he (Mr. Warton) wanted was a fair recognition of individual and personal rights. If a man drank too much and made a noise in the streets, he rendered himself amenable to the police; but if a man did not interfere with the public order, he ought not to be meddled with. Moreover, the effect of this kind of legislation had been to increase rather than to lessen drunkenness, and there was far less excuse now for introducing these Bills than there was five years ago. The House knew what had happened in regard to Wales. There was more Sunday drunkenness in Wales since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act in that country than ever there was before. In Cardiff, Swansea, Denbigh, and Mint Sunday clubs had increased immensely, and the police all testified to the evil results of the Act. At Cardiff there had been disgraceful disclosures. Two or three Catholic clergymen came forward and gave the most revolting evidence as to the dens of infamy which had grown up in Cardiff since the Act came into operation. The advantages of drinking in a public-house over drinking in these secret dens were obvious. In the one case, there were the securities of law and order; in the other, there was every facility and incitement to law-breaking and crime. At Cardiff it was shown that young girls were debauched at these so-called clubs, and the priests to whom he had referred called attention to it in the interests of humanity. The private drinking clubs in Wales had quintupled since the passing of that wretched pharisaical piece of Sunday legislation; and hon. Gentlemen who brought in these Bills year after year showed a strange disposition to shut their eyes to the facts. Looking at the deserted condition of the Treasury Bench at the present moment, he thought it was rather disgraceful that no Member of the Government was present. He would particularly like to see the Home Secretary in his place, in order to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the answer which he gave some time ago with regard to the Police Report from Flint. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that because the Mayor of Flint was interested in the liquor trade, therefore the Inspector's Report as to the tremendous increase of Sunday drunkenness was not deserving of attention, and must be pooh-poohed in the Home Secretary's grand manner. But he (Mr. Warton) strongly objected to that manner of answering a Question, and he now quoted the incident as having a bearing upon the subject under discussion. He did not know whether any Welsh Members would take part in this debate—he noticed that most of them had discreetly kept away; but he challenged them to deny that since the passing of the Act there had been an immense increase of drunkenness, and terrible scenes had taken place. Hon. Gentlemen who promoted these Bills did not seem to understand human nature, or they would know that prohibition often lent a stimulus to enjoyment. The fact that Sunday drinking was prohibited and difficult would make lots of people more anxious to drink on Sunday, for "stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." To be told not to do a thing was a great temptation to go and do it. He advised hon. Gentlemen to study the fable of the hen and her chicken. The hen warned the chicken not to go near the well. The chicken would not have thought of going there; but, of course, directly he was told not to do so, he went and tumbled in; and his dying words were——

"Hadn't it been for prohibition

I ne'er had been in this condition."

The hon. Member who brought forward the Bill seemed now to have retired into an obscure corner of the House. He hoped they should have a few words from the hon. Member, and he would appeal to him to try and grapple with those facts with regard to Wales. Personally, he felt bound to condemn the Bill as an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with a great and respectable trade, an infringement of private rights and liberties, a measure incompatible with the spirit of true Englishmen, and inspired only by a canting, fanatical, and sanctimonious hypocrisy. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has referred to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales, and has incidentally alluded to myself in relation to that matter; but I have to state that the information I possess on the subject leads me to take a totally different view from that expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is 'very true, as he has stated, that in Cardiff, which is a place where certain exceptional circumstances may be cited as against the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, the measure had not been so successful as I have every reason to believe it has been throughout the rest of the Principality of Wales. I can certainly say, without hesitation, that within the limits of my own constituency the Sunday Closing Act is regarded as an incontestable boon. There is hardly a single person in my constituency, unless among the publicans—and I am told that there are many even of them who appreciate the advantage of having a holiday on Sunday—but, at any rate, I believe there is hardly anyone in my constituency, and very few to be found in the constituencies of other hon. Members representing the interests of the people of Wales, who do not regard the Sunday Closing Act as a measure which has been productive of great and most valuable results. With respect to the town of Cardiff, which has very naturally been put in the forefront of the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, there are, as I have already stated, peculiar circumstances which have caused the Sunday Closing Act not to be so successful there as it has been in other parts of the Principality. The hon. Member was, no doubt, quite right in saying that a great deal of drinking goes on in unlicensed houses, such, for instance, as sham clubs, which it will probably be the duty of the Legislature to put an end to, if the means of so doing can be found without further interference than is desirable with the convenience of the public. Among the peculiar circumstances that exist in Cardiff, one of the most noticeable is that there is in that town a large and constantly floating population, composed of seamen from all parts of the world, who do not know what to do with themselves on the Sabbath day, and who indulge, to a great extent, in the pernicious habit of drinking. In this respect Cardiff undoubtedly differs from most other places in Wales; and there is another circumstance which tends to place that seaport in an exceptional position as compared with other places in the Principality—namely, that the town is situated within about a mile and a-half of the English Border, so that on Sunday, during the hours the public-houses are open in England, it becomes a sort of amusement and bravado on the part of certain portions of the Cardiff population, finding the public-houses in their own town all closed, to walk across the Border into the neighbouring county of Monmouth for the purpose of having a drink. There can be no doubt that this custom has engendered a certain amount of drunkenness, and that a certain number of persons who thus go into England, and who begin to drink by way of joke, often end in taking a good deal more than they intended when they first set out from the place in which the Sunday Closing Act is enforced. In this way a good deal of drunkenness among the Cardiff population may be accounted for; but, notwithstanding the energetic appeal made to me by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, I am not able to say what the total effect of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales has been. No doubt there is some evidence in support of the view the hon. and learned Member has taken. He is right in saying that one of the Roman Catholic pastors in Cardiff has made statements adverse to the Sunday Closing Act; but I may mention that after the Easter holidays I happened to be returning to town, through Cardiff, by train, when several gentlemen of that town, one or two of whom I was well acquainted with, got into the carriage in which I was, and I asked them what they considered to have been the effect of the Sunday Closing Act in Cardiff. I am sorry to say that their opinion was that, as to Cardiff, mischief had been done in the way of promoting the establishment of the sham clubs and unlicensed houses, and thus producing a good deal of Sunday drinking. Two of the gentlemen I have referred to, whose testimony I think I could rely upon, said, notwithstanding the statement of the reverend gentleman, or any other evidence that may have been ad- duced, that they believed that on the whole the Sunday Closing Act had been productive of a balance of benefit. In Cardiff, as I have already shown, the matter stands on peculiar and exceptional grounds; but in other places throughout the Principality—and I do not think that even Swansea can he termed an exception, although as a large seaport with a great many sailors constantly reckoned among its population it might be so—I am of opinion that there is no exception to the general rule. I am quite confident that, for the reasons I have mentioned, whatever may be the case with regard to Cardiff, the Sunday Closing Act throughout the whole of the rest of Wales is greatly appreciated by the inhabitants. As the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) did me the honour to refer to me, I have thought it right to give my testimony on the question; and, in conclusion, I may express my belief that the more the matter is inquired into, as far as the operation of the Act in regard to Wales is concerned, the more clearly will it be shown that I am right in the views I have expressed.

said, he thought the House would agree that there could be no two opinions as to the inconvenience of an hon. Member moving the second reading of a Bill of which he was not in charge. Up to the present moment the House had had no explanation whatever of this Bill, and the two hon. Members who had addressed the House had been discussing a different measure from that which was before the House. He would proceed, therefore, to tell the House what this Bill was. It was a misnomer to call it a Sunday Closing Bill. It was realty a Bill for further restricting the hours during which public-houses should be opened on Sunday. A distinction was drawn between public-houses in the Metropolitan district and in towns and populous places; but he could not find that the expression "a town or populous place" was defined in any part of the Bill. He was of opinion that if it was desirable that public-houses should be opened for the sale of liquor during a portion of the Sunday in a populous place, it was desirable that they should be permitted to be open throughout the country for the same purpose. However, this Bill provided that if the premises were situated in the Metropolitan district they should be open on Sunday afternoons from 1 to 3 o'clock, and on Sunday evenings from 7 to 10; and he did not suppose that any one would take exception to that limitation. If the premises were situated outside the Metropolitan district, but within the Metropolitan Police district or a town or populous place, then they were to be open from half-past 12 to half-past 2, and from 7 to 9. That he thought was a very reasonable limitation, and so far as it went he could support the Bill. But then it was provided that if the premises were situated outside a town or populous place they should be closed altogether, except for the sale of liquor to be consumed off the premises. There might be a considerable divergence of opinion as to whether that was not too large a limitation. He must ask those in charge of the Bill to define what they meant by a populous place, whether it was a place of 1,000 or 2,000 inhabitants, and to undertake to insert that definition in the Bill? If the hon. Member for North Durham, whose name was on the back of the Bill, would give an assurance that in Committee Sub-section (b) of Clause 1 should be extended so as to allow the sale of liquor off the premises in rural districts during the same hours as its sale was permitted in towns, he would not oppose the second reading. But if he found that this Bill was merely another phase of the Alliance Bill, and was meant to prevent the sale of liquor throughout the country on one of the days of the week, he would oppose the second reading.

said, he thought that the House had some reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill had been brought forward. The general subject of Sunday closing had been discussed; but that question did not really arise, because they were considering a Bill which, proposing a certain definite change in the law of licensing, did not attempt to bring about the complete closing of public-houses on Sunday. That, therefore, was not the question they had now to consider. The Memorandum which had been printed with the Bill in order to explain the measure stated that it was not proposed to alter the present law relating to the bonâ fide traveller or to railway refreshment rooms; but he found no exceptions of that nature in the Bill. The fact was a Memorandum on a Bill of this character was out of place, and they ought to have had the Bill explained by some hon. Member who was responsible for its production. The whole Bill had been drafted in the most vague terms possible, and it was difficult to forecast what its exact effect would be, while its Preamble entirely misdescribed its objects. Moreover, he was of opinion that a question of this kind was far too large a question to be taken up by one or two private Members. If anything of the nature of Sunday closing or the alteration of hours on Sunday was to be carried out, it ought to be by the Government; and the House would be perfectly justified in resisting, without reference to the merits of the proposal, any attempt in this direction by a private Member. The truth was that these so-called Temperance Bills went upon a wrong principle altogether. More good would be done by cultivating a taste for non-intoxicating liquors than by continually interfering with the sale of intoxicants. He suggested that an inducement should be offered to the keepers of public-houses and refreshment-houses, by allowing them longer hours for the sale of non-intoxicants, which would be an inducement to them to improve the quality of those beverages. He objected altogether to the way in which licensed victuallers were regarded by the promoters of these Bills, who appeared to look upon them as a sort of criminals, or, at any rate, as persons only to be barely tolerated. Hon. Gentlemen appeared to wish to make licensed victuallers as uncomfortable as possible, and to drive all the best men out of the trade. He thought that was a most unfair and unwise policy, and that Parliament ought not to lose sight altogether of the interests of the licensed victuallers. In putting the trade under restrictions they ought to have regard to the conditions under which the licensed victualler carried on his business, and they ought not grievously and without due reason to hamper him in the exercise of his trade. The scheme proposed by the Bill was a crude one, and if adopted would lead to considerable inconvenience. He should, therefore, vote against the second reading of the measure.

said, the second reading of the Bill being moved to-day had undoubtedly taken the House by surprise; and he could not but regret that the other hon. Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill were not present to take part in the discussion. The hon. Member who had just sat down had devoted the whole of his speech to criticizing the manner in which the Bill had been drawn. He (Mr. Charles Palmer) did not wish to follow him in that respect. He wished to say, as his name appeared on the back of the Bill, that those who had brought it forward regarded it as a sort of compromise between the existing condition of things and the extreme measure of total Sunday closing. When hon. Members saw on the back of a Bill the names of Members on both sides of the House, they had no difficulty in believing that there was some likelihood of its being generally accepted. He could assure the House that if it was allowed to pass the second reading stage there would be no difficulty in amending it in Committee, so as to put it in such a form that it would meet with general approval. He did not propose to go into the whole question of Sunday closing; but this he might say, that the question was one which affected the working classes peculiarly, and that if he did not think that the majority of working men—especially in the North of England—were in favour of such a measure as this, he should be the last to recommend it. If even a large minority of working men were against it, he should not be found supporting it; but he believed it was accepted by them as a move in the right direction—towards temperance. As a large employer of labour, he could only say that if they could get rid of this Sunday drinking it would conduce very materially to their men coming to work with certainty and regularity on Monday mornings. That, however, was a very large question, and he did not propose to go into it. He only wished to assure the House, as one whose name was on the back of the Bill, that if it was allowed to go to a second reading, he should be quite prepared to assist in amending it so as to meet the general wishes of the House.

I had no intention of taking any part in the discussion when I came down to the House this afternoon; and I am sorry to say that so little did I think the Bill would be taken to-day, that I did not read it before coming down. However, I have read it since I have been here; and as there is no one else to speak upon it from this Bench, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) has made allusion to what he calls the failure of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, I ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make two or three observations. The hon. and learned Gentleman is altogether incorrect in his statement, and I agree with what has already been stated to the House with regard to the Welsh Sunday Closing Act —namely, that it has proved a great boon to Wales. It is, indeed, felt—particularly in the Border Counties, one of which I have the honour to represent—that it does not go far enough. That opinion, I believe, is also entertained in Cardiff. The evil consists in people going for drink from the Welsh counties, where the public-houses are closed on Sundays, into the English counties, where the public-houses are open. They walk sometimes four or five miles, and think at the end of the journey that they have a right to indemnify themselves for it by drinking more than is good for them. Such increase of drunkenness as there has been on Sunday has, I believe, taken place in districts which are within easy reach of public-houses which remain open on Sunday. But to come to this Bill—it really is not a "Sunday Closing Act" at all. It establishes three different systems of closing. In the Metropolitan district it fixes the closing hours at from 7 to 10. It specifies another closing time for other populous places; and it is only in the rural districts where public-houses are to be closed during the whole of Sunday, except for certain purposes. With regard to the alleged difficulty of defining the words "populous places," I think the fears on that head are altogether groundless. My impression is that the words have received either a statutory or a judicial interpretation; but if not it will be easy to find an acceptable definition when we get into Committee. On the whole, I do not think the Bill is open to the objection which has been taken to it. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Palmer), who is the only Member present whose name is on the back of the Bill, has met hon. Gentlemen who are inclined to take exception to it in a very fair and liberal spirit. He has promised that all the Amendments which may be put down for the Committee stage shall be carefully considered, and that modifications may be introduced. Under the circumstances, the Bill being a fair one, as well as a short and simple one, I think the House should affirm its principle by giving it a second reading, and should leave all objections to it to be dealt with in Committee.

said, that if it were proved that the great majority of the working classes were desirous of having the Bill passed, he would not say one word against it. He had taken the trouble to search in the Library for Petitions respecting it, and he had found one Petition signed by one person in favour of it, and one Petition signed by one person in opposition to it. Under those circumstances, how could it be said that the masses of the middle and the working classes were in favour of this Bill? He spoke with all due deference of, and even with sympathy with, those who desired to promote temperance in this country. In fact, all right-minded people were in favour of promoting temperance. But what Members present but teetotallers were there who did not take wine or beer on Sundays? Let them have no hypocrisy on that subject. If the Act were brought to bear upon public-houses, and the working and the lower middle classes were to be deprived of their beer or their spirits on Sundays, then let the Clubs—the Carlton, the Reform, the Devonshire, and others—be closed. Public-houses were the clubs of the poor; and a certain amount of political capital was being made out of this question by the one side or the other, which ought not to be the case. Were they prepared to apply that restriction of liberty provided by the Bill for one class of the community without applying it to the others. If so, why did they not say so? The truth of the matter was that they dared not do so. It was a dangerous thing to make laws to prescribe the liberties of any one Class, while they did not apply them to themselves and to other classes. While he believed if all others as well as the working classes The Judge Advocate General agreed to go without intoxicating liquors on Sundays they would be none the worse for so doing, at the same time, so: long as Members of that House thought fit to drink wine or beer on Sundays, they had no right to object to the middle and the working classes being in a position to get their beer, wine, or spirits on Sundays. He should; oppose the second reading of the Bill.

in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, he could not understand why, if the rich man could have wine and beer or spirits at his house on Sunday, the middle and the working classes should not be allowed on that day to procure such beverages at the only place where they were in a position to obtain it. He could not support the Bill, because it was only of a partial character — it merely aimed at partially closing public-houses on Sundays. He was not only in favour of the total closing of public-houses on Sunday; but he was, also, in favour of Local Option as advocated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), whose absence and the cause for it they all so much deplored. At the same time, he was not in favour of such a measure as the present. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

in seconding the Motion, said, that so long as there were several millions of men who were interested in the subject who had not been consulted, and who had had no voice in the matter, it was only fair that the debate should be adjourned. The Bill, as presented to the House, was of a hybrid, imperfect character, which ought not to be allowed to pass in its existing form. If they were to stop drinking on Sundays lot them begin at home. Let them begin at that House. [Laughter.] Well, lot them begin at the Clubs. Why were the Members of the Clubs to have their beer, wine, and spirits, while the poor man was not allowed to go for a walk into the country and have his glass of ale or spirits?

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the points raised by the Bill were that the officers and members of Local Authorities might be exempted from certain penalties which were now, in such a manner as to entail grievous public inconvenience, attached to their having any interest in the sale, purchase, lease, or hiring under contracts, with particular Companies of which they were shareholders, or in respect of advertisements in newspapers in which they might have some interest.

said, the Bill had the entire concurrence of the Local Government Board.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to repeal the 2nd section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.

said, that the Bill had only been issued this morning, and the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department was engaged in a Committee upstairs. He would therefore suggest that the debate should be adjourned.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the Bill was to enable Highway Boards to take proper care of the fences and the trees overhanging highways, and to act for this purpose in such a manner, and at such times, as might be most useful for the purpose, and most convenient to the ratepayers and other inhabitants of their districts. By the present law owners and occupiers only could be compelled to act for this purpose during part of the year, and that part was not the spring or summer.

said, that he had assisted in drafting the Bill, which had the unanimous support of the people of the West of England.

said, the Bill had the assent of the Local Government Board.

objected to this Ministerial way of moving the second reading of a Bill, and he objected also to the Bill, which embodied a mischievous interference with the rights of property.

wished to know what was the present state of the law?

said, the Bill had been carefully considered by the permanent officials of the Local Government Board, and it extended to the whole year what could only now be done during part of the year. The Bill was permissive only, and enabled Local Authorities to charge upon the rates, if they thought proper, the costs of carrying the Bill into execution.

said, the Bill, though short, contained a pernicious principle. The rates were already too heavy on houses and landed property. He protested against hasty legislation of this kind, and intimated his intention to vote against any measure which put an additional burden on the rates. Common decency called upon the promoters of the Bill not to press for a second reading that afternoon.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he thought it would be necessary for him to say a few words as to the object and scope of the Bill. A similar Bill was read a second time in 1874 by a majority of 5G on a division; but the General Election taking place just afterwards, it did not reach a further stage. In 1881 the Bill was read a second time again; but again circumstances arose which prevented it being proceeded with. Once more it came before Parliament on the present occasion. The object of the measure was to repeal an Act of Henry VIII., made perpetual by an Act of Queen Elizabeth, requiring Irish Law students to come within the Realm of England for the purpose of studying Law. At the time those Acts were passed there was no School of Law in Ireland, and no Law lectures were delivered there. But now Professorships of Law existed in Trinity College and King's Inn, Dublin, and students preparing for the Irish Bar were compelled to attend lectures, to pass an examination, and to pay fees in Ireland; and yet, after all that, they must come to London, enter one of the English Inns of Court, and make further payments of fees. That system involved an interruption of the studies of the person whom it affected, and also entailed on them a useless expenditure of time and money. Those Irish Law students had to eat and pay for six dinners at four different periods of the year in London, but they were not required to attend lectures or to pass an examination in London; and he could not, therefore, see any possible reason why such an absurd and inconvenient practice should be continued. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had asserted on a former occasion that the old practice of requiring Irish Law students to eat a certain number of dinners in the English capital was found to work very beneficially. For himself, he could not understand how that should be so; although, if the dinners were eaten in the salubrious air of Brighton, the case might perhaps be rather different. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, he believed, was a Director of the London and North Western Railway Company, and perhaps the existing system of compelling Irish Law students to travel to and from England for the purpose of keeping their terms here promoted the interests of that Company. Perhaps that was the reason why he looked upon those half-a-dozen dinners as being so beneficial? Now, those dinners were eaten just at a time when the music halls and theatres were open, and the students were prevented attending the music hall, though probably they would prefer the higher class of entertainment which was to be found at the theatre. A Petition numerously signed by Law students in Dublin had been presented to the Benchers of the King's Inns praying that the present system, might be done away with. In 1881 the Benchers unanimously decided against the Bill; and the Chief Secretary of that day (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated in the House that he could see no reason why the practice should exist of Irish Law students having to eat a certain number of dinners in London. On that occasion the Chief Secretary threw over the Solicitor General and the Benchers, and the Bill was read a second time. If the system was to be maintained, why should there not be reciprocity? Surely it was as essential that English barristers should know Ireland as that Irish barristers should know England? If English students were sent to Dublin he could promise them a kindly and hospitable reception. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.

said, that the hon. Member had made his Motion with great good humour, as if he cherished pleasant memories of the good things provided for him at the King's Inns, and possibly also of the good things provided in the Inns on this side of the water. He should much have preferred seeing some Members of the Govern- ment representing Ireland in their places on that occasion, and he certainly should have liked to see the Solicitor General for Ireland present, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was a Bencher of King's Inn. He was anxious that the Benchers of King's Inn should have an opportunity of being heard on the question. He gladly admitted that the education provided for Law students in Ireland was extremely good; and it might, at first sight, appear that there was no occasion for their visiting the English Schools of Law. He feared, however, that if the measure were passed without reservation or qualification it might be regarded by some as tending to the lowering of the character of the Irish Bar. [Laughter from Irish Members below the Gangway.] He meant that with some the Irish Bar might afterwards be viewed as a Provincial Bar instead of as part of the Bar of the United Kingdom. Irish Law students had distinguished themselves greatly at the English Inns, and obtained Law studentships and many of the greatest prizes there, and their sojourn in England had often been attended with many advantages. The hon. Member had mentioned a Memorial signed by Law students in support of the Bill. Such a Memorial had, it was true, been presented to the Benchers of the King's Inns; but a counter Memorial signed by a still larger number of students had also been presented in opposition to the measure. The whole subject would have been considered by the Benchers a week ago had their meeting not been adjourned out of respect to the memory of the late eminent Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Sir Edward Sullivan. As it was, subject was being considered by them that very day. That being so, he held that it would be reasonable, before coming to a decision on the Bill, to wait for the opinion which those whose duty it was to supervise the education of Law students in Ireland would shortly announce. He, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he would second the Amendment. Personally he had derived much pleasure from the Society of Irish students in the English Inns of Court. The dinners of the Inns of Court would lose all their salt without the Irish students, and he, for one, should be very sorry to lose them. A practice which was founded on an Act of Parliament passed in the Reign of Henry VIII. should not be lightly laid aside. He thought the House would do well to wait, before agreeing to the second reading, until the Benchers of the King's Inns should have made public their views on the matter.

said, that this was not a question as to which Her Majesty's Government had any direct responsibility, or over which they sought to control. He confessed that he had no strong prejudices on the subject one way or another; but it would certainly appear at first sight that the burden of proof rested with those who sought to maintain the present system, which was necessarily in itself an artificial system. He was not, however, prepared to say whether it was advantageous or disadvantageous that the present system should be continued; but he thought there was great force in the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson). As he said, it was now proposed to change a custom which had prevailed for a long period, and as to which there was a difference of opinion. The persons most interested and most entitled to form a judgment on the subject were the Benchers. They had received Memorials both for and against this change, and had met to discuss the subject; but owing to the melancholy death of the Lord Chancellor their meeting had been adjourned. As the Bill had been reached unexpectedly that afternoon and the meeting of the Benchers had been adjourned through no fault of their own, he thought it would be discourteous in the House of Commons to proceed with the Bill until it was in possession of the views of the Benchers on the subject. Under these circumstances, he should be prepared to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

remarked that he was extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had at last come out in his true colours. He was delighted to find him supporting the Motion for Adjournment. In 1881, in the middle of the Coercion campaign, even the right hon. Member for Brad- ford (Mr. W. E. Forster), in the teeth of the unanimous opposition of the Benchers, supported this Bill, and it was road a second time without a division. Now, four years afterwards, simply because the Benchers chose to let three months pass without coming to a decision which, when it would be come to, nobody would regard as being worth two pence, the Chief Secretary stood up there and supported a Motion to shelve this matter. The question had been before the public for some years, and everyone know what the Benchers' opinions on the matter were. He ventured to think that this question was one not for Benchers, barristers, or students, but for the general public to pronounce an opinion upon; and it was well worthy of the present Chief Secretary that, disregarding the course taken by his Predecessor, he should stand up and support the miserable subterfuge of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, in order thereby to insure the defeat of this Bill. It was of importance to the people of Ireland, who were prevented by the present mediaeval arrangements from going into the Profession in large numbers, that this Bill should be passed.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of denouncing the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he thought it was a matter very much to be regretted that he should offer any opposition to this Bill until he know the opinion of the Benchers. He had some experience of Benchers. They were an excellent body of gentlemen, no doubt; but they were a body of men who had no more right to speak on behalf of the Bar than they had to speak on behalf of the House of Commons. This was a matter on which, in his humble opinion, the House of Commons were as competent to form an opinion as the Benchers or anybody else. If they had to wait until they had the opinion of Judges and Benchers for legal reform, they would have very little reform indeed. As regards the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary, he would like to know what the right hon. Gentleman would say if no advocate could be called in Scotland until he came up to London to eat a certain number of dinners? Why, the Scotch would rebel against such an idea. Yet that was what now happened in the case of Ireland, and the reason for it probably was that in former days it was presumed there was no adequate legal training to be had in Ireland. That reason had disappeared, and it was admitted that there were now admirable means of legal training in Ireland. For his own part, seeing the many distinguished men who raised themselves to positions at the Bar, notwithstanding great pecuniary difficulties, he did not understand why this burden should be left upon Law students in Ireland, especially when they get nothing in return for it.

said, that he happened to be a Bencher, and he was glad to see that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. R. T. Reid) still believed that there was some excellence left in Benchers. He did not think that the regulation complained of in this instance should still be maintained; and he ventured to hope, therefore, that his right hon. and learned Friend would withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment. His hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Warton) said he had not made up his mind; but he (Sir Henry Holland) had made up his mind, and he was dead against Henry VIII., in whose reign this absurd regulation was made. There was no doubt that excellent legal education was now given in Ireland, and it did seem preposterous that in this 19th century Irish barristers should be compelled to come to London to eat a certain number of dinners before they could practise their Profession in their own country.

said, he did not propose to go into the merits of this Bill; but he agreed with his hon. Friend who had just spoken in appealing to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) to withdraw his Motion. The reason accepted and enforced by the Chief Secretary for the adjournment of the subject seemed to him to be against it. He understood that the Benchers of the King's Inns had met that day to express their opinion on this matter. If they decided in favour of the change, the adjournment of the debate now would render it impracticable for the Bill to be passed this Session. On the other hand, if the Benchers were against the Bill, the entire force of the two Front Benches in the House could be brought against the Bill on its third reading.

said, that he, too, was dead against Henry VIII. The reasons given in support of the Motion for Adjournment were totally inadequate, and the House would not consult its dignity by upholding a Motion meant to kill a Bill which they might expect received the support of the barristers and students of Ireland. He agreed with the remarks which had been made with respect to the Benchers. They were a self-elected body, and in this country so little represented the views and interests of the Bar that they had to be assisted by a Committee elected by the Bar at large.

remarked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin would have been more successful in his plea for delay if he had omitted expressing any opinion on the merits of the Bill. When, however, he told the House that the Bill would tend to lower the Bar of Ireland, he showed that there were other grounds on which he opposed the Bill. He hoped, however, the result of the division would give a direct negative to the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Chief Secretary succeeded in getting this Bill defeated today, he would be bound to provide facilities for legislation later on in the Session. A great deal had been said with regard to the opinion of the Benchers. As a Member of the Middle Temple, he had had plenty of opportunity of forming an opinion as to the estimation in which the Benchers were held. No one having any knowledge of the views and wishes of the Bar would think of bending to the authority of the Benchers for a single moment on questions of reform. The Irish Benchers, he had no doubt, occupied a like position, and on a question of reform no one would think of asking the opinion of the Benchers either in England or Ireland.

said, that this question was, no doubt, of considerable importance to those who were immediately interested in it. He could not, upon a Motion for Adjournment, enter into the merits of the proposal; but his opinion was that the advantages of the present system were very obvious. He supported the Motion for Adjournment on the ground that the question was now under the consideration of the Benchers in Dublin; and it was perfectly plain that the Bill had been brought on quite by surprise. He had the honour to be one of the Benchers of the only Inn of Court there was in Ireland—the King's Inns —and the statement that the Benchers were not a good authority to pronounce an opinion and give advice on this subject seemed to him to be one of the most extravagantly Radical propositions he had ever heard. The Benchers knew the practice and working of the Bar in Ireland, and he was quite sure that they enjoyed the confidence and represented the general opinion of the Bar. [Cries of "No!"]

They refused to admit A. M. Sullivan to the Bar.

He was admitted to the Bar in Ireland.

After he was admitted to the English Bar.

said, it appeared that a Petition had been presented by certain students who desired to have the law changed; but a Petition on the other side, rather more numerously signed, had also been presented, and he thought it would not be decent under such circumstances to pass over and take no notice of the opinions of the Judges and distinguished members of the Bar upon the subject. They were told that because the Chief Secretary supported the adjournment that he had appeared in his true colours, and that he desired to tyrannize over the Irish people. The imputation was perfectly ridiculous. It did not in the least matter to the Irish people what the opinion of the Chief Secretary on this particular subject might be. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said so over and over again. He hoped the House would agree to the very reasonable proposal for adjournment, which did not decide upon the merits of the case, and that the debate would be delayed until they received the opinion of the Benchers.

said, he entirely disagreed with the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. He wished to point out that this question had been discussed on a previous occasion; and the Bill had not, therefore, taken them entirely by surprise. If the students could get a proper education in Ireland without coming to this country he failed to see why the Bill should not be read a second time. It appeared to him that no facts had been adduced to show that the Bar would in any way suffer by the change contem- plated. This was an Irish grievance which ought to be remedied, but it was evident that the Bill could not be brought on again this Session if the House now carried the Motion for Adjournment.

said, he hoped the Motion for Adjournment would be withdrawn. The question was not a new one. The Bill afforded an opportunity of removing a very irritating grievance felt by the Irish people, and the House had now an opportunity of doing what was just and right. The opposition to this Bill had always been in inverse ratio to the social and legal position of those who had spoken about it. The people who felt the grievance were the students, who had to go to the expense of coming to England. The Judges and Benchers did not feel the grievance, because they had obtained rank and emoluments, and did not wish to make admission to the Bar too easy. He hoped, under these circumstances, when there was an opportunity to agree to popular wishes which were reasonable, the Chief Secretary would not support the proposal of an adjournment. If anybody proposed at this moment to impose the restriction now sought to be removed no one in the House would support it; but when there was an opportunity of removing it, distinguished legal Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench opposed it. If they were successful it would be a great disappointment to the bulk of the Irish Members.

appealed to the hon. Member not to press the Motion at that time, as the House had been taken entirely by surprise, and many hon. Members who desired to take part in the discussion were absent. There would be other opportunities for proceeding with the measure; and he would venture to suggest to the hon. Member that if he would fix a day for taking the Committee stage those who were opposed to the Bill would be prepared to discuss it then. He might also point out that the Bill seriously affected the interests of the Water Companies, In the funds of these Companies many Trustees had invested on the faith of Acts of Parliament; and there was no precedent of such a Bill being passed in opposition to the views of the Water Companies.

said, that, as the House was aware, the Government supported this Bill; but, in the present circumstances, he would suggest to his hon. Friend to be content with the Motion he had made, and not to insist on taking the clauses that day, as he thought it was desirable that the House should have time to consider what Amendments should be moved.

pointed out that private Members could only get their Bills forward when they were fortunate enough to obtain such an opportunity as the present. If hon. Members were taken by surprise they had only themselves to blame. The Bill had now been a very long time before the House, its principle had been approved, and he could not see why the right hon. Baronet should appeal to his hon. Friend to postpone the clauses.

said, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury would comply with the appeal that had been made to him. He had blocked the Bill for some time past, as it was a Bill on which a considerable amount of discussion should take place. No fair hearing could be given to the opponents of the Bill when it was brought on as unexpectedly as it had been that day. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would agree to postpone this stage, and give due Notice of the day when it would be taken, he would agree to remove his block, and to use his influence with his Friends to do the same.

hoped that the hon. Member for Finsbury would be content with getting the Speaker out of the Chair, and would then report Progress at once. That would be a step gained, and was all that the hon. Gentleman could desire under the circumstances.

said, the Bill was read a first time last year, and the present Bill was identical with that, and was virtually the same Bill. The hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Akers-Douglas) said that he had blocked the Bill with the object of obtaining for it a fair hearing; but he was under the impression that the process of blocking a Bill had exactly the contrary effect. As, however, he had been appealed to by the President of the Local Government Board and his hon. Friend the Member for Hythe, he was quite willing to yield to what appeared to be the general wish of the House, and would move to report Progress as soon as the Speaker had left the Chair.

who had given Notice that he would move, as an Amendment—

"That the Bill be referred to a Hybrid Committee:—That the said Committee do consist of Eleven Members, Six to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection. That all Petitions against the Bill, presented not later than three clear days before the sitting; of the Committee, be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or Witnesses, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think it, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill, against such Petitions:— That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:—That Five be the quorum of the Committee;"

said, the Bill affected property to the value of about £30,000,000, and it proposed to adopt an entirely new system of rating for water. It had been decided over and over again that the annual value of property was the only fair means of levying the rate. As hon. Members were aware, parochial rating was considerably under the real value, and it would be very unfair to adopt it in this instance. He held that it would be unjust to go into Committee on the Bill without first giving all parties interested in its provisions the opportunity of making their views known by counsel.

seconded the Amendment. The Water Companies, he said, understood at the time of their establishment that they were to have the right to charge according to the value of the houses supplied with water. In the Dobbs case the Judges had laid down that the annual value of property-was its net annual value. The Companies' charges must, consequently, be based on such net annual value. But it was a mistake to suppose, as the framers of the Bill appeared to do, that this meant the rateable value of houses for parochial purposes, for the net annual value of premises was almost always greater than the rateable value. It was far better that the Bill should go before a Committee, which would examine it dispassionately, than that hon. Members should be tempted to give an unjust vote in order to court popularity.

in supporting the Amendment, said, that he did not join in the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, who was a little too lavish in imputing motives to Gentlemen on the other side. He believed that the House, if it did inflict an injustice, would do so from ignorance or inadvertence. His reason for supporting the Amendment was that, if the Bill passed, it would affect different Companies very differently. The method of rating was very different in various parts of the Metropolis. In some places the rateable was equal to, or even more than, the annual value; in other parts it was considerably less. Therefore, if the Bill were to pass it would not affect one Company at all, while another might be very severely handled. It would be only right that all these points should be carefully examined by a Select Committee, with the aid of gentlemen representing the different Companies of the Metropolis. He hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consider that point and accept the Amendment, which could not in any way prejudice the passing of the measure he had in hand. If it were passed after an inquiry at which the Companies were heard they would not feel that they had been ill-treated by legislation behind their backs without getting an opportunity of explaining their position.

rose, and was addressing the House, when—

rose to Order, and said that the hon. and learned Member had exhausted his right of speech by having seconded the Amendment which had been negatived.

That does not exhaust my right.

said, that the hon. and learned Member was out of Order.

in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the present measure dealt only with private lunatic asylums in Ireland; but a Bill had been introduced in "another place" with regard to English asylums, and had much the same scope as the present Bill. This Bill aimed at gradually getting rid of the vicious principle of keeping private lunatic asylums for pecuniary profit, which was at the root of all the evils connected with private asylums. The Earl of Shaftesbury, Chairman of the Lunacy Board, the highest living authority on the subject, stated before a Select Committee of the House in 1859 that the evils of the system could hardly be exaggerated. One could not conceive how, in the face of all that had occurred, and all the evidence recorded against them, private lunatic asylums kept by individuals for personal gain had so long been tolerated. There had recently been some very notable cases of attempts made to shut up persons who were not insane in establishments of this kind. There were three classes of lunatic asylums in Ireland— asylums for charitable purposes, the district lunatic asylums, and the private asylums. The first two were satisfactory, although he believed the ratepayers should be represented on the Board of Governors. If capital for the purpose of building asylums to be under the management of Government, in which the medical and other officers should have no pecuniary interest whatever beyond their salaries, could be introduced into the country, or procured from some public fund, such as the Church Surplus Fund, it would be a blessing to the country and to the insane.

said, he fully recognized the pains which the hon. Member had taken in this matter, and his earnest desire to improve the arrangements affecting the management of lunatics in Ireland; but the Government could not assent to the second reading of the Bill. In the first place, the Government had introduced a Bill into the other House for England, which indicated the general lines on which he thought legislation should proceed in this matter. That Bill did not apply to Ireland, and it would be impossible for the Government to be legislating at the same time upon one system in the other House, and upon another system in this House. The two countries, although their circumstances were different, ought to be dealt with on substantially the same lines, making allowance for the difference of their circumstances. The system in Ireland was far from perfect; there was a deficiency of inspection and control by Local Authorities; but the Bill would intensify these evils by centralizing the management of the asylums, which would be a step altogether in the wrong direction. He knew and admitted all that could be said in favour of doing away with private asylums; at the same time, to get rid of them in a summary way would raise large questions of compensation. To transfer in a summary way all the private asylums to the Central Executive Government would be an unfortunate step. He looked forward to the time when there would be in Ireland Local Authorities who could take charge of asylums. The hon. Member assumed that asylums would be self-supporting if they were erected; but money would be required to erect them. The hon. Member said he would get it from the Church Fund Surplus; but, to the best of his belief, there was nothing to be obtained from that source, and that would be a considerable obstacle to the successful operation of this Bill.

said, it would be impossible to put Ireland in the Bill now before the House of Lords, because the details of the two countries were so different; but that Bill indicated the general lines on which the Government thought it desirable to proceed.