The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to extend the scope of the Bill. At present no person is eligible for the service franchise if the person under Whom he serves inhabits the qualifying premises, and in consequence shop assistants who reside in their

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise that this Bill is to clear away certain difficulties which have arisen owing to the decision of the judges in regard to the service franchise. The hon. Member is perfectly right when he says that if a master lives in a particular house the men-servants are not entitled to vote. It is impossible to leave out the words mentioned in this Amendment unless you further extend the franchise, and therefore I am unable to accept it.

presented himself at the Table, and, addressing the Chairman, said: I was in the Aye Lobby, and the tellers left the door before I was counted.

The hon. Member ought to have stated that before the numbers were announced.

There will be a, further opportunity of moving Amendments, and, as undoubtedly hon. Members opposite are not here in their natural strength, I do not propose to move any further Amendments of mine.

I propose to follow the same course. The Amendments which have been carried extend the Bill, and an alteration of its whole framework will be necessary. Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next.

The three new clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport are out of order. They are drawn in such a way that they could not be accepted as Amendments to this Bill. They are in effect Amendments of the Factory Acts.

I respectfully submit that th second of my proposed clauses does not in any way deal with the Factory Acts, although I admit frankly that the third one does. The second clause merely exempts from this Act a certain trade, but if the Chairman rules that I am out of order I shall be out of court.

On a point of order, I wish to know whether it would be possible for me to extend the exception to persons engaged in agriculture.

The exception of persons employed in agriculture has already been inserted in the Bill. I have given the best consideration I can to the matter, and I think the hon. Member's clause as drawn is on the wrong side of the line, and therefore I cannot accept it.

I am sorry I have gone over the line; but I think, after your ruling, Sir, I will with-draw both clauses, and submit them in a different form on the Report stage.

I have been called upon most unexpectedly to move the second reading of this Bill, which I confess I thought I would have very little chance of commending to the House of Commons this afternoon. The Bill which has been committed to my charge has been drawn after a long and careful consideration by the Church of England Temperance Society. I venture to say no subject at the present moment exercises more the minds of a large number of earnest men and women in this country than the question of some restriction of the hours during which public-houses are open in England. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies said in 1894 that Sunday closing was—

"a question which had probably excited more interest and had brought to its support more influence than any other, unless it he the reduction of public-houses."

In 1897 the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons, said:

"There is a great amount of popular feeling on the side of Sunday closing. … This object is dear to the hearts of earnest men, who believe that by total prohibition on Sunday they may not only improve the keeping of Sunday in England, but may at the Same time remove many of those extra causes of intemperance which may be supposed to Occur in an interval of leisure such as Sunday should be."

The Bill which I have the honour to present to the House of Commons is not a Sunday Closing Bill. It is a Bill to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday. The first clause says:

"Subject to any order made under this Act, all premises in which intoxicating liquor is sold by retail shall he closed during the whole of Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday."

The second clause is as follows:

"The licensing authority for the time being empowered by law to grant licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor may make an order permitting licensed premises in their licensing district, or in any part thereof, to lie specified in the order, to be mien on Sunday, Christmas Day, or Good Friday, during such time or times as they may by the order prescribe, not exceeding in the whole two hours on any such day, for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption off the premises only, and may make an order varying or revoking any previous order."

I am not an advocate of total Sunday closing myself. It is desirable we should proceed gradually, and I believe this Bill is one which will meet with the approval of many who, though interested in the temperance question, do not see their way to advocate Sunday closing, and I hope we shall secure their votes for this measure. The subject is one to which I have devoted myself for many years, and in which I take the very greatest interest. I urge this Bill on the House, firstly, on behalf of the publicans themselves; secondly, on behalf of large numbers of public-house employees throughout the land who do not know the blessing of a Sunday's rest; and thirdly, because I believe it is a step in the right direction towards securing some check on intemperance, which is a blot on our national escutcheon. I most earnestly appeal to the House to let this modest Bill pass. It is in accordance with the feelings of a large number, not only of clergymen but of devoted men and women throughout the country, who are grieved at the terrible evil of intemperance which disgraces our land. Let it go to a Committee upstairs. We have not a great deal of work to do this session, and I appeal to the Government—I am sure I shall not appeal in vain to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, the only occupant of the Treasury bench, as his zeal in the cause is well known—but I appeal to the Government to let this Bill be read a second time, and passed into law. I venture to think that in days to come, when other Members occupy these benches, it will be said with great credit to this Conservative and Unionist Government that it used the great majority the country gave it to pass into law a measure winch cannot fail to be the greatest possible blessing not only in the present day but for all generations.

I rise to support very cordially the second reading of this Bill. Arguments are not needed, and I merely wish to say that for the last forty-five years we have enjoyed in Scotland the blessing of Sunday closing, and it has been universally admitted that it has acted not only in the interests of the publicans and all engaged in the trade, but has been an unmixed blessing to all classes of the community.

I rise for an opposite purpose to that stated by the hon. Member. I wish to place before the House the peculiar position in which it is now Placed. We have a Bill before us which has been unexpectedly brought under our notice. I do not, of course, blame my hon friend in any shape or form. He has followed a perfectly straightforward course, as everyone who knows him would expect. But we now find ourselves called on to dead with a measure of extreme importance, and one on which great public feeling has always been exhibited as long as I can recollect, and the Treasury bench is empty with the exception of one occupant. Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board any mandate from his colleagues to convey their views on this subject to the House?

None at all. I am on the Treasury bench because matters affecting the Local Government Board appear on the Order Paper, and I have no intention of dealing With other matters.

Quite so. My hon. friend bears out my statement. He is here to discharge his own duty and to attend to a Particular question, but he is not in a position to speak for his colleagues or to afford the House any guidance as to the views of Her Majesty's, Government on a subject of such importance as that now before us. I am glad to see that my hon. friend has now been relieved from his solitary position, and that he has been joined by my right hon. friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department. I would ask my right hon. friend if he has come to state the views of the Government to the House, and if he can assure us that this matter has been fully considered by the Cabinet, or if he can present the views of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. We are all of us approaching this subject under very peculiar conditions. A Royal commission appointed by this Government is, I believe, at this very moment charged with the consideration of this subject, although I feel doubtful as to how far I am justified in saying that the Royal Commission is still sitting. I observe that the Chairman of that Commission has publicly declared that the Commission is dissolved, and he has stated that in virtue of the power conferred upon him by the Commission he declared it to be dissolved. How that announcement stands from a legal point of view I hesitate to express any opinion upon. I am inclined to think it is absolutely ultra vires, consequently has no effect. But even assuming that view to be incorrect, and that the Royal Commission is discharged from further consideration of the subject, it would be very unfortunate for the House, without any official authority or guidance whatever, to attempt to deal with so important a subject. The question of the hours at which intoxicating liquors shall be retailed on Sundays is one of the most difficult problems which a Royal Commission could undertake. I have seen a draft of the rival reports of this Commission, and they reveal a very extraordinary conflict of opinion, though I am not aware that any exact official announcement has yet been made upon this subject. The hon. Member for Cockermouth would be in favour of making short work of this question, not only on Sundays, but upon any other day, and upon this subject I do not think that the hon. Member has ever drawn any distinction between one day and another. According to my hon. friend's view it is a most mischievous and injurious trade, which ought not to be merely limited to a certain number of hours, but should be absolutely extinguished for ever. That is the view which the hon. Member for Cockermouth has persistently advocated for many years. I doubt whether the Members of this House have had an opportunity of studying the report of the Royal Commission which has peen appointed, and I do not think any Member or any authoritative section of the House would care to rush pell-mell into a decision upon this thorny subject. With reference to the Bill itself, I am bound to admit that I did not regard it as a probable subject to be considered to-day, nor had I regarded it as a Bill which was likely to be taken this Session. Therefore my hon. friend in that respect shares my surprise. The promoter of not give us a memorandum or epitome, as some promoters have done, and I think he was wise in not doing that, because on the face of it the measure shows pretty well what his intentions are. My hon. friend proposes that public-houses shall be closed on Sunday without any recommendation from the Executive or without any report from the Royal Commission. Besides this, he proposes to allow the licensing authority to discharge duties which have never been confided to any licensing authority before. The Bill provides that the sale of intoxicating liquors on a Sunday shall be confined to two hours, and only for consumption off the premises. I am not going to find fault with that on its merits. There is a good deal to be said in favour of meeting the views of a very large number of people who have not the luxury which a cellar affords, and who are dependent upon the nearest licensed house for the beer which they consume at their meals. Therefore I am not disposed to find fault with my hon. friend for having afforded greater facilities for the consumption of intoxicating liquors off the premises. I fail to see, on the other hand, what provision my hon. friend has made for that very interesting personage the bona fide traveller. He is a person of whom we have heard a great deal in our time. He very often performs a very arduous journey, and he is sometimes supposed to hail from a place not very far outside the area of his own parish. I presume that my hon. friend desires to guard against the spurious traveller, but I think the case of the bona fide traveller is one which ought to be seriously regarded by Parliament. I represent myself a constituency where the bone fide traveller looms very largely—probably few hon. Members are aware of the great number of attractions in the district which I have the honour to represent. Therefore I make no apology to the House for drawing attention to the very grave inconvenience and the gross injustice which a measure of this kind would inflict upon a vast number of persons for whose convenience and comfort Parliament ought to have some regard. That being so, I think I am entitled to ask how he can expect the House of Commons—practically without notice, and in face of the circumstances to which I have already drawn attention—to give a second reading to a Bill dealing with so complicated and controversial a subject. The hon. Gentleman opposite, upon the Service Franchise Bill, waived the right which he undoubtedly possessed of pressing the advantage he had gained. I am not going to make this suggestion to my hon. friend, and if he will take my advice he will avail himself of the opportunity he has got; but I hope he will avail himself of it in true Parliamentary fashion by not attempting to gloss over the undoubted difficulties which surround this subject, for it is a very thorny and difficult question. I do not think myself that the Royal Commission would be wasting their time if they were to listen to the suggestions winch my hon. friend has to make. As far as I can judge, I think the time of that Commission has been very largely wasted, and I do not think that the result of its labours, whenever that resuft is forthcoming, will redound very largely to the credit of those concerned. I am quite aware that a great deal of that result is due to the system adopted by the authorities. The plan of appointing on a judicial inquiry a certain number of bigoted partisans on either side, and then bringing an equivalent number of persons supposed to have a well-balanced mind, is pernicious to a degree. I have no hesitation in saying that a large number of the members of the Royal Commission, though they are very valuable as witnesses, are in the wrong place.

Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the way in which the Commission is composed, or the manner the matter was conducted before the Royal Commission, before it has reported.

I am glad that I am relieved from the difficulty of trying to give an account of the proceedings before the Commissioners. As you very properly pointed out, the least said about them the better. I gather that I have the assent of my hon. friend to this; he recognises the desirability and the necessity of expounding a scheme, which so far has never been done before. My bon. friend has studied this question in all its bearings for a great many years, but he has never identified himself with the extreme views held by some upon this subject. There has been a marked distinction between the moderate spirit which has actuated my hon. friend and those which have been advocated by some who hold more extreme views, who call his Bill half-hearted, and look upon him as a turncoat. But they are wrong in doing so, because he has disassociated himself from the more extreme views, and he never has associated himself with the extremists who desire to annihilate such a large industry. As to the further causes of the Bill, I hoped that my hon. friend would have relieved me from the necessity of endeavouring to expound them. I think it is usual for those urging the acceptance of a Bill upon the House to discharge that duty. My hon. friend proposes to adopt for his purpose the provisions of the Licensing Acts; and, supposing that it is right for us to deal with the matter at all, that is a very reasonable course to be pursued. Therefore I shall not detain the House by going through the subsidiary clauses of the Bill. The fact remains that the House would be adopting an absolutely unprecedented course in reading a Bill of this kind a second time on this occasion; a Bill dealing with such great interests; a scheme for shutting up every refreshment house in the country, so far as consumption on the premises is concerned, without so far as I can see any provision whatever for recognising hotels, although it may perhaps appear by reference to some existing Act. So far as I can see, my hon. friend would shut up, so far as the bona fide travelling public are concerned, every hotel and licensed house in the country. As regards hotels, there is a very great distinction between the refreshment houses used by the wealthy and those used by the poor, and I have always contended that legislation of this kind is for the most part essentially class legislation. My friend has absolved himself from that extreme reform, but I cannot see that he contemplates any preferential treatment as regards hotels. The law distinctly recognises such a distinction being made, and possibly by some reference there may be sonic Act embodied in this Bill winch will carry out tins idea. So far as the Bill itself is concerned it appears upon the face of it that it would be a very crude measure, not accompanied by any of those necessary safeguards either to the trade concerned or to the community at large, of which hitherto the promoters of all measures of this kind have availed themselves. The House would be well advised to decline to deal with this matter at all. Under the circumstances, I do not wish to put my hon. friend in a position of diffi- culty by moving that this Bill be read a second time six months hence, which would be the natural conclusion of my remarks. I would much rather leave it to my hon. friend to reconsider ins position under the circumstances, in order that he may have an opportunity of withdrawing the measure.

We all recognise, I think—no matter what our views may be upon the temperance question, whether we are in favour of any particular measure or not—the necessity of some reform. We all desire to promote the real temperance of this country, and any such measure must have the support of this House; but there is always the danger that upon such a question as this we may legislate before the time is ripe for such legislation. I do not think any Bill which is brought before this House can be successful unless it has the full authority of the people behind it, and that being so I now propose to devote my attention to the second clause of the Bill. If I understand this Bill correctly, the second clause proposes the partial closing of public-houses on Sunday. It proposes that they may open for two hours every Sunday if in the opinion of the licensing authority it is expedient; but what I suggest is that the licensing authority, as at present constituted, is not in touch with the feeling of the people in the locality on that question. I do not see how any Member of this House can know whether a public-house in a particular district should be open for a particular time only. It is impossible to legislate in advance of local public opinion in such a matter as this; and unless you have the people with you, the police with you, and the magistrates with you, it is useless decreeing that all public-houses shall be closed on Sunday. I would much rather place tins question in the hands of the people themselves, in the hands of those who use public-houses, and who have every right to use them in fair and proper manner. We on this side of the House, who profess to trust the people, do not see why we should not give them full power over this as over other matters. I think, myself, that if the people had a right to control the public-houses there would be better beer and better whisky and a larger measure of temperance. It seems to me that the motion Which I hope to move is essentially a popular one, and drafted on popular lines, and therefore I shall move, "That no Bill to restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday would be satisfactory unless it embodies the principle of local option." That will satisfy even the aspirations of my hon. friend the Member for Cocker-mouth. He earl have no logical objection to local option on Sundays, if he advocates it for the rest of the week. Then there is the fact that the Royal Commission has not yet reported, and I would also point out that this NH is exciting a great deal of interest in the country, and that it comes here most unexpectedly on a Wednesday afternoon, on the eve of the report of the Royal Commission. Till we have that report I do think it would be better not to proceed with this Bill in its present form, but to put the whole question into the hands of the people. With that remark I beg to move my Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment, although it does not exactly express my views on this Bill. Although I am in favour of temperance, and of every sort of legislation that can really conduce to temperance, I must say there are restrictions in this Bill which would work very seriously against the comfort, of the working classes of this country. The point I object to most is that those depraved beings like myself who like a glass of beer, and who have not the opportunity of storing it, cannot get their beer on Sunday unless the licensing authority gives them leave. The licensing authorities vary in different places. I have no confidence in the "great unpaid" as being proper judges of when working men who like their beer should get it. I daresay they are very good judges of how much is good for the working men, but at the same time a little must be loft to the feeling of those who want to drink beer. We ought to allow these to have some control over the hours of Sunday closing. I do not think any Bill will be satisfactory which goes to such an extent against the feelings of the working men, because in most places it would annoy them by cutting off their dinner beer and supper beer on Sundays. I quite recognise that something must be clone towards preventing a great many public-houses becoming drinking shops on Sunday. I do not say in all cases, but in certain cases, they do a considerable amount of harm, which by legislation might be controlled. The first necessity, however, is to get the people to back up the proposed legislation. In America, where much temperance legislation had been passed of which the people did not thoroughly approve, the result was that the law was broken to an enormous extent. I think that any Bill that deals with this subject at all might to go into the question of preventing children going into public-houses. It may be said that that question is outside Sunday closing; but I believe it is of even greater importance than Sunday closing, that the country is ready for such a measure, and that the people would support it to their utmost. We are on the verge of getting a report, or several reports, from the Royal Commission which has been considering the licensing question for three years. It is said these reports will be issued next week, and therefore I think to-day is about the most inopportune of the whole year when such a measure as this could have been brought forward. When the reports of the Royal Commission are fully considered, we should get a better Bill, that would be approved of not only by the Royal Commission itself, but by the large majority of the gentlemen opposite, and one very much more satisfactory than any mere Bill for Sunday closing or local option. I think in the near future the Unionist Government will be obliged to deal with temperance legislation, so as to reduce intemperance, and do some good without annoying and irritating a large portion of our labouring population. I dissociate myself entirely from those who are opposed to temperance legislation, and I would not for one moment, if I thought any good could conic from it, and that drunkenness would really he stopped by it, have voted against this Bill. I think that the Amendment is a very wise one, and that the people of the district should have some power to say whether there should be Sunday closing or not. The licensing authorities are not sufficiently in touch with the people to justify their being entrusted with unlimited power.

There is one reason why We should not read this Bill a second time. If it becomes law it will not affect any of us in this House. We shall be interfering with the comforts and necessities of a large body of Her Majesty's subjects, in the happy consciousness that we ourselves shall not be interfered with at all. That is beyond all contradiction. No one in this House is in the habit of frequenting public-houses on Sunday to have his refreshment, and to meet and have social intercourse with his mates. He has his own house, his own wine and beer cellar, and if the Bill becomes law his freedom will not be interfered with in any way. There are many reasons against the Bill becoming law. This is not the first time I have felt it my duty to oppose similar legislation; but I always do it with regret, for I desire the object aimed at as heartily as the promoters of such legislation do. I can even go as far as to say that if I really believed that this Bill would considerably diminish drunkenness I should be very much disposed to vote for it. But I do not believe that it would have that effect. I think what is proposed is illogical. This Bill deals generally with what are called intoxicating liquors. It treats all liquors alike—the fiery spirits, the strong adulterated gin, the innocent claret, and the refreshing beer, or even choice cider, so cordially and so strongly recommended to us by one hon. Member of this House. It makes no distinction between them all; no matter how infinitesimal the proportion of alcohol in them, they are at once called intoxicating liquors. I can understand the logical position of those, like the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth, who consider it exceedingly wrong to drink any liquor at all—

I rise to order. I never made any such statement.

Of Course I withdraw the statement on the assurance of the hon. Baronet; but, from the public action of the hon. Baronet, notwithstanding the very good tempered and vivacious way he has of airing his views, I certainly got the impression that he thought all alcoholic liquors were bad, and that the manufacture should be stopped.

I am I sorry to interrupt again; but I never said anything of the kind.

Then the manufacture is not wrong, the drinking is not wrong, but the sale is wrong. Whatever the hon. baronet may say, there are those who hold the view that alcohol does such an infinite amount of mischief that it ought not to be manufactured or sold. That is a logical position. But it is illogical for people to say, "We do not want to close public-houses on week days. All We desire is to close them entirely on Sunday." There are others who say that it is wrong for a man to take a moderate amount of refreshment on Sunday which he enjoys on week-days; and the argument is that Sunday is a sacred day. Nobody would go further than myself in advocating the claims of Sunday as a sacred day, and a day to be devoted to rest. It would be perfectly logical to contend that everything should lie prohibited by law which interferes with the day of rest—newspapers, the sale of tobacco and cigars, the opening of public-houses, and so on. But I see no logic in permitting trains to be run, newspapers, tobacco, cigars, &c., to be sold on Sunday, and in preventing the sale of drinks because they have a proportion of alcohol in them. Why do you not prohibit all these things Because they are for the public convenience, and if they were prohibited no one would stand such an interference with liberty. it is said by some that the results would be so excellent that we ought to prohibit the sale on Sunday. I doubt whether the result would be so excellent. It would arouse in the breast of those who desire drink a determination to have it at all hazards. It is alleged that statistics show that in districts where Sunday closing prevails there is less drunkenness than in those districts where the public-houses are Open. But I remember a learned Queen's Counsel, who supported a similar bill, admitting in this House that these statistics are utterly unreliable; and a little consideration shows that that must be the case. A man goes to a public-house, he drinks too much, creates a disturbance on his way home, is arrested, and appears in statistics. But suppose the public-houses are closed; the man sends for all the drink he wants, either on the Saturday night or on the Sunday during the two hours which the promoters of this Bill are good enough to allow the public-houses to be open. The drink is brought to his house, and is partaken of, not only by himself, but by his family. We have had a good deal of evidence to show that the result is very fatal to the sobriety, not only of himself, but of his children. I know from private sources which I can thoroughly trust, from a lady who has done a great deal of work among the poor in Cardiff that as the result of Sunday closing in the town there has been an increase of drinking and its fearful effects. That seems to me a very strong reason against this measure. Though the Bill permits the local authority to open the house for a few hours during the day, they might not do so. The magistrates might say that they were not disposed to open the public-houses on the Sunday, when the State has closed them. We must remember that there are a large number of unmarried workmen who, as a rule, have only a bedroom, and no place to sit in, except the common room of a public-house. And there are a large number of highly respectable workmen who, from the dearness of rent, are unable to have a separate room where they can entertain their mates and discuss where better wages can be obtained, and the like. Are these men to be driven to the corners of the streets in all weathers, because the only common room open to them is closed? Then again, look at the number of clubs which have been founded, and which it is impossible to close—not bogus clubs, but genuine clubs, Radical clubs, Conservative clubs, and Unionist clubs, all of them with bars for the sale of drink. These clubs are frequently used to escape the licensing laws and the police laws; the members get intoxicating drink late at night and on Sundays, and this has led to an increase in drunkenness. It is far better, I think, that those disposed to take too much should take the liquor under the supervision of the police, and with proper regulations, than that they should be driven to form clubs for the purpose. I myself would punish drunkenness wher- ever it occurs. I would punish a man for getting drunk in his own house, just as I would punish a man for torturing a cat in his own house. In regard to the Bill before the House, from the first account we had of it from my hon. friend I thought that for once I might support such a Bill. But when I read it through, especially the second clause, 1 found it was really a Bill for the total closing of public-houses on Sunday.

The hon. Member accuses me of not being quite straightforward in my description of the Bill, but I have to inform him that I read out the whole of the first and second clauses.

I did not for a moment suggest that the hon. Member gave a mistaken notion of the Bill. It is a Bill for the total closing of public-houses on Sunday except to those who go to fetch their refreshment. A Bill of this kind would merely create annoyance, and cause a man who is poor to be treated in a different way from his neighbour who is better off. If the people honestly wish to close public-houses on Sunday, they can do so by not frequenting them. If publicans wish to close, they are at liberty to do so; but they are afraid that, if they do, their customers will go on week days to houses which open on Sundays. They should do what they believe to be right, and take the consequences. To legislate for their protection is demoralising. There is want of logic in the Bill; the good results we all desire could not be obtained by it; it would create unfairness and inconvenience; and I, therefore, cannot support either the second reading or the Amendment.

Tins Bill has come upon us with surprise to-day. I read it for the first time a few minutes ago, and could scarcely find out whether it was a Bill fur the total closing of public-houses on Sunday or whether it gave authority to the licensing authority to open the houses for the off-sale of liquor. As a member of the Royal Commission, I do not know if I have a right to speak on this subject at all; but 1 think it would be very advisable not to proceed further with the Bill, at any rate until the House has full information in regard to the various questions that arise as to the opening and closing of public-houses on Sundays and weekdays, In a few days, probably, the report of the Royal Commission will be issued, and until you have that report there is no use considering the matter in this crude and ill-constructed form. If the Amendment before the House is carried, the Royal Commission will have been sitting for three years to no purpose. In regard to local veto they have not given such a recommendation, nor have they given any recommendation in regard to total closing on Sunday.

I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. Member entitled to divulge the findings of a Royal Commission that has not yet reported?

It would be contrary to the practice of the House for an hon. Member to state what are the views of a Royal Commission of which he is a member, and which has not yet reported to Her Majesty.

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I may be permitted to say that this Bill does not apply to Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and I have no objection to leave the English people to discuss the whole matter. On its merits, the Bill is of a most absurd construction. I think the House should wait until they get the authoritative report of the findings of the Royal Commission, and they would then be in a better position to deal with the whole question.

Few of us thought that this Bill would be reached to-day, and some of us have only seen it since we entered the House. We are, therefore, at a disadvantage in considering it. That is one reason why the House should not come to a decision on this question to-day; another reason is that the report of the Royal Commission of 24 members, which will be issued in a day or two, should be first considered. I think the House would do well if, instead of voting either for the Amendment or the second reading of the Bill, the debate were adjourned; and before I sit down I shall, with the permission of the Chair, move that the debate be now adjourned. The first observation that occurred to me in listening to the speech of the mover of the Amendment was that he claimed that they on that side of the House represent the Temperance Party. I admit that the Baronet the Member for Cocker- mouth has led a party which is known as the Temperance Party; but I entirely deny that they have a monopoly of the desire to promote temperance, or that they have a special claim to call themselves the Temperance Party.

Hear, hear!

I am glad that the hon. Baronet admits that. Instead of bandying this about as a party question, we should deal with it on broad grounds. The promotion of the cause of temperance is not a party question, and we would do far more for the interests of the temperance cause if we treated it on non-party lines. I agree with the adage that it is no use attempting to make people sober by Act of Parliament. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said himself that no measure could achieve success if it was riot backed up by the people. If that is so, has there been any desire expressed by the people of the country for this Bill? I deny that there has been. I have received many letters from so-called temperance reformers of the wildest character. When the Scottish Local Veto Bill was coming on I had a letter from one eminent temperance leader asking me to vote for it because, he said, the Bill would bring about a sober Sunday for England! Why, the Bill did not even apply to England! Legislation proposed in this House is not considered by these people on its merits, but from a fanatical point of view. Now, I entirely deny that in this country we have a drunken Sunday, and I protest most emphatically against such an aspersion being put on the working classes. They are not drunken on Sunday or any other day of the week. I admit there is a certain amount of deplorable drunkenness and crime produced from drunkenness; but, I ask, are you going to make people sober or decrease the consumption of alcohol by Act of Parliament?

Certainly.

I would ask what possible ground there is for such an assertion? What possible data can be produced, what argument can be used, in favour of that statement? Does the hon. Member assert that the working classes of this country are such a weak-kneed set of people that because a public-house door is open they cannot pass it without going in? I must say I cannot take so low and mean a view of the people as that. But if the argument be true, the proper way to deal with such a state of affairs is not by closing the public-houses, but by doing everything you can to strengthen the moral courage of the people. It is not by a measure of this kind, or by Acts of Parliament id any kind, that you are going to promote the cause of temperance reform in the country. I believe ranch more could be done in the cause of temperance if some system were found whereby the alcoholic liquors sold in public-houses were not of the raw, rotten, and bad character they now are. There is no doubt that some of the spirits sold in public-houses in large towns are unfit for human consumption. Coming to the details of the Bill, the first clause provides that public-houses shall be closed on Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday; but the second clause allows the licensing authority the power of leaving open the public-houses for two hours if so desired. Now, there are some who have a respect for the licensing authorities as at present constituted. Some of these authorities I admit, are particularly good, and do their administrative work in a manner that reflects credit on themselves. But there are other authorities who do not deal with the questions brought before them from a judicial point of view, but from their own point of view, leaving out of consideration the real justice of the case. I remember well discussing this matter with a magistrate in the city of Manchester, who told me that he went to every Licensing Session, and voted regularly against every licence. He believed he was acting for the best, but it is monstrous for a man holding views like that to be allowed to act in a judicial capacity. If that is the way in which the Sunday exemptions are to be given, what would happen? It would become a question of which party had a majority on the licensing authority. And if the magistrates who represent the views of hon. Members on this side of the House were in a minority, they would immediately come to the Minister responsible for the appointment of magistrates, and bring pressure to bear for the appointment of a sufficient number of magistrates to give them a majority. We all know what happened at Manchester, where the appointments were made for party purposes. What happened at Manchester was that after these gentlemen were put upon the bench the whole of the licensing policy of the city of Manchester was entirely reversed. I do not say that the appointment of these gentlemen was contrary to the practice which was previously adopted, but that was the result, and it is deplorable that those whose duty it is to administer justice in this country should be appointed for party purposes, and should he put on the bench to carry out the views of any particular section of the community. If the working of this Bill were to bring about or accentuate that state of things, it would be bad from all points of view. Clause 3 refers to the provisions of the Licensing Acts of 1872 and 1874. Now, the judges of this land have complained many times that Acts of Parliament do not state exactly what they mean, and they have to look up other Acts in order to see what is meant. As far as I can understand this clause, I suppose it is intended to exclude clubs. Some hon. Members have doubts whether these words do exclude clubs. If this Bill passes without alteration, I can quite understand what an excellent means it will be for the expenditure of money, testing whether clubs are included or not. If my hon. friend intends to exclude clubs, it will be better to have it stated clearly in the Bill. For my part, I admit that there may be a great deal to be said in favour of treating clubs upon a different basis from public-houses, although I have always looked upon this as class legislation of the worst possible description. If it is right that the working man's club should he closed on Sunday, I cannot see why the clubs which the rich men frequent should not be treated in the same way. I admit that, on account of the constitution of some clubs, there should not be the same regulations as apply to public-houses, which are frequented by people of a different character, and whose ways and means of life are not of the same intellectual standard. As a matter of abstract justice, I have never been able to understand why you should treat a public-house upon one basis and a club upon another basis altogether different. If you admit the principle that you are going to treat a club on a different basis to a public-house, then there is no reason whatsoever why working people should not form themselves into clubs, and use them as public-houses, and thereby avoid altogether the object which my hon. friend has in view in bringing forward this Bill, The last remark which I desire to make is on Clause 5, which says that the Bill shall not apply to Scotland, Ireland, or Wales. I presume that Wales is excluded because they have, practically, Sunday closing there already. As a supporter of the Act of Union, I think it is it pity that national measures of this kind do not treat the whole of the United Kingdom upon the same basis.

We will accept it for Ireland.

I do not know what particular authority the hon. Member has to speak on behalf of Ireland. I have always held, and still hold, that in legislation of this kind we ought to be placed on all fours in all parts of the United Kingdom. We are in the position of not having received the report of the Royal Commission which has been sitting for three years considering this question, and we do not know what their recommendations may be, for we have had no opportunity of considering the evidence which was given before that Commission. Therefore a more inopportune time than this to consider this question could hardly have been selected. Under these circumstances I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

I beg leave to second this motion. A question of this importance should not be dealt with by a "snap" debate, for it involves nothing less than the liberties of the people of England. My belief is that the people of England believe that it is better to have liberty with drunkenness than slavery with temperance, and that it is better to have liberty with disease than slavery with health. That is the question really involved in this Bill, and it is of such importance, and has come on so suddenly, without opportunities to adequately discuss the matter, that I do not think it should be discussed in this casual way in the absence of the leaders of both parties. It is a very serious question, and it is much more serious than appears on the surface. Let me say one word as to the temperate man. We are called upon to admire the temperate man; but What is he?. Why, he is a poor, pale-blooded, infirm, unenergetic man, without generosity and without perseverance. Was Moses a temperate man, or Martin Luther, or Napoleon, or any man who was any good in this world? No! Those men had great courage and energetic convictions, and they all took, on proper occasions, a certain amount of alcoholic nourishment. I do not know whether, on the motion for adjournment, I should be in order in going into the merits of the Bill. Temperance advocates themselves are an illustration of intemperance itself, for of all the intemperate people in this world there are none so intemperate as they are. They are not content themselves with their own form of temperance, but they would impose their Puritanical tyranny on their countrymen, assuming, as the promoters of this Bill do assume, that we all abuse our opportunities for refreshment. They do not ask whether a man abuses liquor or not, but they assume that he is going to abuse it. The modern history of this Question and the facts of the present day do not justify any more of these nauseating Puritanical attacks on the liberties of the people of England.

I rise to order. I desire to know if the hon. Gentleman is in order in discussing this question on a motion for adjournment.

No new question has yet been put before the House, and the hon. Member is in order.

I think the hon. Baronet opposite ought to be obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for telling him what are the elementary rules of debate. I say that all the facts of this day prove, and increasingly prove day by day, that no such special interference with the liberties of the English people is required in the cause of temperance. I am a student of my fellow-countrymen, and I do declare most solemnly in this House that to-day temperance is making most fearful strides among the population. When I was young I remember well that nothing could be obtained at a railway station except alcoholic refreshment, which was generally beer or spirits. But now every railway station refreshment room is overflowing, I was going to say, with milk alai honey, but at least with milk and mineral waters. The poor pale glass of whisky is out of date, and modest drunkenness dare not show her face. So true is this, that drunkenness is almost extinct in this country. I do declare that in this country I never see a drunken man. It is only when I cross the Channel or the Tweed that I come across an example of that almost extinct animal the drunken man; and it is a most remarkable thing that in the only countries where I see drunken men this Bill does not apply. I should like to ask the twelve great statesmen—whose names will live in history and which appear on the back of thisBill—what are they about when they bring in a Bill which is to apply tyranny in England in the name of temperance, where it is not required, at the same time leaving out of the measure Scotland and Ireland where it is required most?

We have got Sunday closing in Ireland.

Yes, but have you got temperance in Ireland?

Yes, we have, and we boast the noblest temperance reformer of this century.

If that is so, then it is the most striking example possible of the absolute ineffectiveness of temperance work, because there is no country in the universe where temperance reformers have had their efforts crowned with so small a success as in Ireland. I am in favour myself of refreshment, but it should be occasional and small. If a man became drunk and disorderly, I would curtail his liberty only when he interfered with the liberty of others; but if he got drunk in a quiet and orderly manner in his own house I would not interfere with him, and I would

"let him play the fool in his own house,"

as Hamlet says. I do believe that all these attempts to impose what is miscalled temperance upon the English people, to prevent them being able to go into public-houses because it is assumed that they will get drunk, are destined to fail, and I believe every one of these twelve eminent statesmen whose names appear on the back of this Bill will find When the next General Election comes round that the attacks they have made upon the liberties of the English people will be very seriously and warmly resented. Now, what is it that this Bill deals with? It does not deal with drunkenness gener- ally, but only with one particular occasion for getting drunk, providing you wish to. Those who have travelled in the East know the great convenience of what are known as guest-houses. Well, the public-house is the guest-house of England, as its name implies, and it is the only one left open to the poor man. The rich man has his club, and he has also his hotel, which is an expensive refuge not open to the poor man. The public-house is so named because it is a house of public entertainment, and this is where these intemperate temperance Puritans make a mistake. They assume that a man only goes into a public-house in order to get drunk; that is an entirely unwarranted assumption, which is disproved almost by everybody who frequent public-houses. Public-houses are open to all, and people frequent them in order to obtain reasonable refreshment; and it is perfectly outrageous, because one in a thousand happens to overstep the moderate limit, to call upon this House to close the whole of our public-houses altogether. In my opinion the Amendment is almost worse than the Bill itself, because it suggests, I am informed, local option. I am not afraid to say that I am dead against either Sunday closing or local option. Upon one occasion, when I was contesting an election for a small town in the Midlands, I was interviewed by a temperance deputation. They asked me, "Are you in favour of local option and the closing of public-houses on Sunday?" I replied, "What is the good of asking me those questions; you know you are all Radicals and yon mean to vote against me." They replied, "Oh, no, we put temperance before all things, and if you will satisfy us on the temperance question we shall be quite prepared to vote for you." I told them that I was against Sunday closing and local option, and that I was in favour of a little moderate drunkenness—I think I called it hilarity; at any rate, it is that sort of exhilaration which the hon. Baronet opposite gets from drinking a glass of pure water. There are people who are capable of getting drunk with their own speeches, and I believe some people can get drunk upon tea. As for myself, 1 was never drunk in my life. All I desire is that we should realise things as they actually are. No matter whether we are at leisure or engaged in social meetings, we all take a certain amount of exciting food or liquor to exhilarate us, and to whip up the sluggish flow of our spirits to make us proper companions for the friends we meet. All our enjoyments are based upon the consumption of a certain amount of exciting food or liquor. The right hon. baronet opposite, probably, gets exhilarated on a mutton chop or porridge—

Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling very far from the Amendment.

I will at once bring my remarks to a close. All I wish to say now is that the whole social arrangements of this country are based upon the taking of a moderate amount of refreshment, and this Bill proposes to make a difference in that respect with regard to those who wish to obtain that refreshment. On those grounds I most strongly object to the Bill, and I second and support the motion of my hon. friend for the adjournment of the Debate, because I think that this is a far more important question than it appears to be. It is a question which involves the liberty of the people of England, and therefore it is one which should be discussed when the occupants of the front benches are present.

I should not have interfered in this Debate if the hon. Member for Manchester had not made special reference to certain statements of mine. But before I take any notice of his criticisms I should like to say. that I regard this—

Order, order! The only question now before the House is whether the Debate should now be adjourned.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that this is a very serious question, and I do not think that the Debate upon it ought to be adjourned at this stage. I should regret extremely that the consideration of this Bill should now be postponed, because it contains a principle of the greatest possible importance. Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 85. (Division List 176.)

I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. It is a measure which is supported on both sides of the House, and its object is to amend the Beerhouse Acts so as to simply place beerhouse licences on exactly the same footing as ordinary licences for the sale of beer and spirits.

I confess that I am placed in a rather peculiar position in having again to trespass upon the time of the House in dealing with a subject which is very much like the one discussed in a Bill which has already been under our consideration to-day. Unlike the promoter of the other Bill to which I have alluded, the hon. Gentleman has furnished us with a memorandum, which is extremely useful to people like myself, for it informs me what the particular objects are which the Bill has in view. The memorandum says that the object of this Bill is to interfere in a hostile sense with what has been long recognised by Parliament as a vested interest. I do not think that is denied. The object of this Bill is to give to the licensing justices the same discretion in dealing with beer and cider houses that they now possess in regard to fully licensed houses and other places of refreshment, and this Bill is to place them in a different position, so far as the law is concerned, to that which they occupy now. I deprecated earlier in the day the attempt to deal with this subject until the Royal Commission which is now considering the question has issued its report, and it is not necessary for me to repeat what I have said before. But there is in this Bill a very great distinction between the two measures with regard to vested interest. Parliament designedly gave to these beer-houses a vested interest, and placed them in such a position that the renewal of their licences was wholly outside the discretion of the licensing justices. I have heard a good deal of argument in years past upon this question, and it is not necessary to go into detail. I believe it was the object of the Legislature in dealing with these beerhouses to discourage the consumption of stronger drink by encouraging the consumption of milder beverages. There is no doubt that the national taste, whether for good or evil, has very largely changed; and the taste for beer has, relatively, hardly kept pace with the taste for stronger drinks. As the law at present stands, the owners of these beer licences possess a vested interest, which, under this Bill, it is sought to remove. I think it is unwise to attempt to remove a vested interest without that degree of consideration which it is impossible for this measure to receive this afternoon. I put this question upon the higher ground that this is a specific vested interest created by Parliament which we are now asked to disturb. I refer to the opinion of Sir Harry Poland, who is acquainted with the Licensing Acts in all their aspects. He was a practising barrister and was engaged as Prosecutor by the Treasury. His practical experience in his profession has been supplemented by the position he occupies as chairman of one of the largest licensing benches in London. With reference to this very question, he says that the Beer Acts of 1830, 1834, and 1840 covered the "off"' and "on" licences up to 1869. In 1828 it was thought to encourage the drinking of beer as against spirits, and it was provided that any man could have a licence from the Excise for beer without going to the magistrates for approval. In 1830 that law was enacted. These licences Were obtained as a right up to 1834; then it was found that the persons put into the beerhouses were not real tenants but merely nominees; and in order to prevent that, the Act of 1840 was passed, and it was provided that no licence to sell beer or cider should be given to any person not a resident occupier or owner.

May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from?

I am quoting from the First Report of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Licensing Laws, presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in asking the question, but I am not a retailer of the illicit gossip which has been going round recently as to the alleged intentions of the Royal Commission. I take no cognisance of any gossip of that kind; and I confine myself entirely to the documents presented to Parliament by command of the Queen. Sir Harry Poland proceeds with regard to the licences obtained as of right from the Excise under the Acts of 1834 and 1840, and states that such licences could only be refused by the magistrates on one of the four grounds mentioned in Section E; and that the Legislature recognised that they were entitled to carry on a lawful trade in which they had embarked their capital. Coming from such a great and unique authority, I think Sir Harry Poland's opinion ought to have great weight with the House. We are now asked to take this matter out of the hands of the Royal Commission at the suggestion of private Members, without any official guidance, and I think such a recognised authority as my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin will admit that that is a step which the House should be very chary in adopting. We are asked to interfere with a vested interest, and knowing the high character and sense of justice of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, who has made himself responsible for this Bill, I turn it over to find the compensation clause, but there is no such clause in it. Perhaps my right hon. friend was prevented by his position as a private Member from making any motion which would involve taxation. That may be the reason why there is no compensation clause in the Bill, but at any rate we are asked to interfere with a vested interest at the instance of private Members, without any provision whatever for compensation. There are only four grounds under which these licences can be taken away under the existing law—viz., character, disorderly conduct, previous bad character, and want of accommodation. The Bill is an invasion of the general principle which has, as a rule, always guided legislation. That principle, which even those who have contravened it have made a show of complying with, is that the possessor of every right or interest shall have equitable compensation in the event of that right or interest being invaded. The Bill provides that the justices shall have full and complete control over these houses, which they never had before. I am glad to see my right hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, with his usual devotion to duty, and I hope he will be in a position to state what course the Government think it advisable that the House should adopt in the very peculiar circumstances in which we are placed. No doubt the fact that the Royal Commission has not yet reported may be used against the Bill, but I hope my right hon. friend will go further, and that he will he prepared to express his regret at this assault on vested interests unaccompanied by some kind of compensation. It is an act of legislative injustice, and I think we ought to have some sort of explanation from the Government. I am unwilling to conclude by proposing to postpone further action on the part of the House, although it may appear to be a natural Amendment following the remarks I have been allowed to make. I should, however, like to hear some explanation, and after the course which the House has adopted with regard to the previous Bill, it is by no means improbable that reasons may suggest themselves for deferring the consideration of this Bill for some period, during which we may hear the Report of the Royal Commission and an announcement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the whole question.

:My right hon. friend the Member for Thanet appeared to pick up information as he went along. He seems to know a great deal more about the subject now than he did before, although he was not very accurate in the beginning. It is quite true that in 1830 an Act was passed which allowed beerhouses to be set up irrespective of the control of the magistrates. The operation of that Act showed that it was much abused, and in 1840 an amending Act was passed. Even, however, with the restrictions in the latter Act, these beerhouses became largely a public nuisance, and in 1869 an Act was passed in order to control as much as possible the evil effects that arose from them. My right hon. friend has developed a most extraordinary theory of vested interest in this matter. In 1840 Parliament curtailed the vested interest in these houses; in 1869 it did not create a vested interest, but it put conditions on the exercise of that interest. In that year Parliament brought these houses for the first time under the control of the magistrates, to the extent of the four causes which have been mentioned. It did not create a vested interest. It was a limitation of interest, and the mere fact that Parliament did that showed that it claimed to have that right. The present Bill does not propose that the magistrates should have the unlimited right of putting down these houses. If that were suggested, there might have been something in the argument of my right hon. friend. All that the Bill proposes is that the magistrates shall have the same discretion with respect to the licences granted before 1869 as it has with reference to the licences granted since that year. It puts these licences under the same discretion as ordinary public-houses. Reference has been made to the Royal Commission. I am not going to say anything about the Commission, or what it may or may not recommend, but every authority, before the Licensing Commission was established, sought to bring these comparatively few houses, which were in existence before 1869, under the same magisterial control that applies to hotel licences and ordinary licences whether before or since 1869. To refuse to give this magisterial discretion is to say that Parliament is powerless. It is said that the Bill of 1869 created a vested interest. Parliament in what it did that year affirmed that the opinion of the magistrates should be invoked in the control of these houses. The Bill before the House is very simple, and has been supported by county bench after county bench throughout the country, who ask that power may be given them to deal with the miserable pest-houses in their neighbourhoods, which they cannot now control. On behalf of the magistrates and of their liberty of action, I appeal to the House to consider this Bill.

Hon. Members who have been in the House this afternoon will agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet has discharged with great ability the duty which fell upon him so unexpectedly of opposing two Bills of a very intricate character. I do not complain so much of the absence of the representatives of the Treasury Department as I do of the absence of the law officers of the Crown. This Bill confessedly involves a very intricate point of law, and it would be to the advantage of the discussion if we could have heard from the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General what the law really is, and what the bearing of this Bill will be. I have listened carefully to what has been said by my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin on the question of vested interest. I have also listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and I must confess that I have come to the conclusion that he has established a case of interference with what is in effect a vested interest, which, in accordance with the ordinary practice of Parliament, could not be taken away without compensation; and I am not convinced by the speech of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin that that is not the case. Section 19 of the Act of 1869 says, with respect to the licences now under consideration, that it shall not be lawful for the justices to refuse an application for a certificate for the sale of beer except on one or more of the grounds specified. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin talked lightly of the interference which this Bill proposes; but the Bill proposes to repeal Section 19 of the 1869 Act, and it goes further and states that—

"Notwithstanding anything in the Acts mentioned or in Acts now in force, the licensing justices shall be at liberty to refuse a certificate for any licence for the sale of beer or cider on any ground appearing to them sufficient."

That appears to me to be absolutely putting it within the discretion of the justices to control licences which at the present moment they are not empowered to interfere with except on certain specified grounds. In that way the Bill does touch a vested right, and the extension of the powers of the magistrates may result in the vested right being taken away; and if it be a valuable right, the only principle on which Parliament can deal with it is by compensation. But is it a valuable right? That is a point on which I should have desired some information from the law officers of the Crown. I presume it is a valuable right, because, like all other licences, it is in the nature of a monopoly, and I would appeal to my hon. friends who advocate temperance reform to take care lest they may be taking a most dangerous step by confusing between licences which are a vested and a valuable right and licences which, although a valuable, are not a vested right. It is in my opinion dangerous for them to confuse, as my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin did, beerhouse with ordinary public-house licences, which are not a vested right at all. What is the real difficulty in all these matters? Why are the licences of beer-houses a valuable right? Simply because of the infatuated policy Parliament has pursued for generations, in insisting in making the duty on licences so small as to be only an infinitesimal part of their value. If the duties were made higher, then, although licences might be a vested, they would nt,t he a valuable right in the sense that is taken objection to. What chance is there of getting reforms like that? I have been appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this, as in former sessions, to give us on the authority of his Department information as to what is the difference between the duty on licences and the annual value of the licences. If we had that information it would then be seen how many millions a year of public money are squandered because of the ridiculously low duties on licences. That is the view which I venture to put before the House on this question. I must adhere to my statement, until I am enlightened by either the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench or by the law officers of the Crown, that there are good grounds for the rejection of the Bill. The only way to deal with the question is to level up the duties on all licences to their annual value.

Of course hon. Members are quite right in taking advantage of the opportunity which has been given them of discussing this somewhat intricate subject. But hon. Members have asked what is the position of the Government as regards this Bill. I should have thought that any Member of Parliament, and especially my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, must know what is the inevitable position of the Government with regard to this measure, and others of a similar character. The Government, three years ago, with general approval, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the licensing laws, and that Commission has spared no effort in order to obtain information, not only on the particular point of the licensing question now before the House, but on that question as a whole. It is on the eve of presenting its Report, arid giving us the result of its inquiries and deliberations; and is it to he supposed that the Govern- ment would now be prepared to prejudge that Report on any particular point by expressing a decided opinion or any opinion on this Bill, or any other Bill of a similar character, affecting the inquiry which they themselves had instituted? If I were to ask my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, as a member of the former Administration, would any Government, after having appointed a Royal Commission of such importance, give an opinion a few days before the Report of that Commission was received on a point which had been referred to it, I think he would only give one answer; and I venture to challenge him as to whether it would be even courteous to that important Commission if the Government were to pronounce an opinion, or even to discuss the question, before they had the valuable results of its deliberations. My right hon. friend the Member for Thanet asked what were the opinions of the Government with regard to compensation and other matters. I have not seen the Report of the Royal Commission, but I take it that the question of compensation is very likely to figure largely in it, and is it to be expected that the Government would now offer opinions which would forestall the mature conclusions of the Commission? Not a single point has been raised this afternoon which has not been the subject of a vast amount of labour on the part of the Commission. With reference to the intricate point discussed so ably by my right hon. friends, I have no doubt, judging from the evidence which has been given before the Commission, that light will also be thrown on it.

What about the Bill? How are we going to vote?

I must leave that to the superior judgment—for it is a superior judgment—of my hon. friend. He knows better than anybody else what course to take; but with regard to this Bill, or any Bill of a similar character, the Government cannot, under the circumstances, express any opinion.

I personally doubt the propriety of referring to the details of the evidence given before a Commission which has not yet reported, but as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has read the evidence of Sir Harry Poland, I should like to remind the House that Sir Harry Poland stood almost alone in the opinion he expressed, and that the overwhelming evidence given on this particular point was strongly in favour of the Bill now being discussed. The second point to which I desire to allude is the unanimity of opinion in favour of this Bill which was expressed, long before the Commission was appointed, by those really responsible for the administration of the licensing laws. We cannot have a better opinion in regard to a question of this character than the opinion of the justices responsible for the administration of the law, and I would like to state one or two facts in regard to the unanimity which prevails on this point. Resolutions have been passed in favour of this Bill by no less than 21 quarter sessions in England and Whales, 18 being unanimous; by 11 city benches, 10 being unanimous; and by 48 benches of borough justices, 34 being unanimous. In addition, very strong approval of the Bill has been expressed by a large number of county councils and standing joint committees throughout the country. I very much doubt whether there is a single Bill which has ever been before the Committee which has had behind it such an overwhelming support from those authorities primarily connected with the administration of the law to be affected by the Bill. There is one more point to which I desire to allude, and that is the question of compensation which has been raised more than once this afternoon. Speaking for myself, I am inclined to think that the statement of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin was absolutely convincing upon tins point. From 1830 onwards he traced the history of this question, step by step, and laid it before the House in such a lucid manner that it should be impossible for anyone to have a doubt in future with regard to it. Dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, I am not quite sure whether the vigorous expression of opinion be gave in regard to it represents the opinion of his colleagues; I believe it is only his personal opinion. But, apart from this important question of compensation, whatever may be the Report of the Royal Commission—and I am not going to suggest what it is going to be—it seems to me that in addition to the Acts which have been laid before the House by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, there is the all-important fact which ought to be remembered, namely, that legislation subsequent to 1859 is quite as much in favour of the views he holds upon the question as the legislation at the time spoken of. I do not know whether hon. Members recollect what took place in this House in 1884, when the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade himself passed a Bill through this House dealing with "off" beer licences, and effecting that which it is the object of the present Bill to effect in regard to beerhouses; but I do say that if it was right in 1882 to pass an Act of that character without making compensation, it is equally equitable to do the same thing in the present Bill. I hope this Bill will not be treated front a political standpoint. I desire to echo in the strongest possible way what has been already said more than once to-day, namely, that we must endeavour, whatever our political views may be, to combine before any substantial progress is made in temperance reform, and believing as I do that this is absolutely a non-party question, and that the Bill represents the views of almost all the justices of this country who are primarily responsible for the administration of the law, I hope that we shall take the second reading without any party consideration.

The hon. Member for Dundee began his speech by lamenting the absence of the law officers of the Crown. I was rather inclined to agree with him that we had lost something by their absence, but he gave us such an able exposition of the Bill that I think we have lost nothing. His point seemed to be so unanswerable that I was rather inclined not to get up, but allow the House to go to a division upon the subject; but, as the hon. Member who has just sat down has made one or two observations about this not being a political subject, I think I should like to say a few words upon it. Those of us who have listened to the hon. Member for Dundee must have been convinced that people holding these licences have invested their money in them on the faith of an Act of Parliament. In that respect they differ from the ordinary bolder of ordinary licences of public-houses, because he knows very well when he purchases the licence that there is a possibility of his being deprived of it. That is a condition of most investments, but it is not a condition which attaches in this case, as has been clearly shown. An hon. Member says this is not a political question. It is not a political question. It is a question of right or wrong; it is a question of taking away something a licensed holder has because certain people think the cause of temperance may he advanced. The cause of temperance is a very good cause. I should be very 10th to do anything which would in any way tend to prevent sobriety prevailing in the land. Intemperance is a very great danger to any State. But, on the other hand, I hope you will not tamper with the rights of property in order to further temperance reform. The hon. Member for Dundee has said that it was always understood that if a vested right was a valuable right it should not be taken away without compensation. If it is a monopoly it is a valuable right. No monopoly would be a right unless it was valuable, and I think we may be quite certain that these people would not retain their licences unless they made something out of them. Now I do not wish to allude to the Royal Commission. My right hon. friend has said that it is not right to prejudge the evidence which they may bring forward or the conclusions at which they may arrive. But it is very evident that, should the Royal Commission arrive at a conclusion which is detrimental to public-house proprietary, their recommendations may make those licences very valuable assets, of which people should not be deprived without proper compensation. I am afraid that I have but weakly shown what seem to me to be strong grounds for rejecting this Bill; but I hope that every Member of this House will pause long before he commits himself to the second reading of this Bill.

There are other reasons than the fear of interfering with vested rights—which the House has a perfect right to deal with in the interests of the community—which incline me to look with disfavour on the Bill. For my part, I object to giving the magistrates any more power over the licensing question than they have at the present moment, and I think that the whole liquor question, including that branch of it, would be better dealt with as a whole. But I do protest against the way in which we have been treated by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government. They have sat silent for three parts of this debate, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department gets up and shelters himself behind the Royal Commission. Of course, we know that Her Majesty's Government has faith in Royal Commissions; but, unfortunately, we have not that faith on this side of the House. In common courtesy to this House, ought he not to have got up at once when this Debate began and moved the adjournment, instead of simply allowing it to go on, and saying that for the present the Government could not express an opinion, as there was a Commission sitting upon the question?

I think that this question is too important to be disposed of by flippant allusions to the Government or the magistrates. In the last forty or fifty years the magistrates have done much to reduce the excessive number of licences. I cannot help remembering what has taken place in this House over a pretty long period of years in respect to this question. I recollect the important discussion which took place in 1857 upon the very question which we are now discussing, when Lord Cranbrook made his first great reputation in this House by a speech on the Beer Bill. He introduced a Bill which was intended to place licences of beerhouses on the same footing as fully licensed houses. The Bill was of a somewhat drastic character. It was in advance of public opinion, and this House declined to accept it. At the same time, although that Bill was defeated by a small majority, it was understood that the Government of the day would deal with the question itself. I do not think any special legislation took place until 1869, and it is worth the while of hon. Members to refer to the speech made by Mr. Hardy. It was a very exhaustive and comprehensive speech, in which he demonstrated the great evils that accrued from beer licences in the country, the low character of many of the houses, and the urgent need, in the interests of morality and the welfare of the working classes, of reducing the number of those houses and of raising the character of those that remained. But, as I have said, nothing has been done, and up to this day licences to sell beer can be obtained by simple application to the Inland Revenue authorities. That cannot be a satisfactory state of things. I myself was, many years ago, chairman of a Royal Commission to inquire into a certain branch of the licensing question, namely, the grocers' licences in Scotland. We took evidence and made recommendations of a much wider character than were incidental to the subject, and we found that there was a great evil to be remedied. I agree quite with the hon. Member for Dundee that the only effectual cure for the existence of low-class houses entrusted with licences would be to raise the value of the licences; and I have no doubt an expedient could he found by which compensation could be made to those houses which were extinguished out of the increased receipts of the licence duty. I do not think it can be denied that public-houses and the majority of beer and spirit licences should be subjected to much stricter regulation than is imposed upon them. I think the very slightest consideration of the subject must show that it is not one which can be dealt with in a hasty and partial manner. I do not know why a reference to the Royal Commission need excite the ridicule of the House. The question has been referred to a Commission composed of small numbers, and I think a Commission of small numbers is more likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion than a large body. Meanwhile, I do not know whether it will he possible to make any alteration of the law without having regard to the evidence given before that Commission, and the recommendations made.

We have had an interesting Debate this afternoon. There are two points which have been raised. This first is that the Bill interferes with vested interests, and the second is that we ought to await the report of the Royal Commission. I venture to say, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the first objection has not been proved. There are no particular vested interests in beerhouse licences granted since 1869, and I see no reason why licences before that year should be placed on a different footing. Then, Sir, there is another reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. There is one advantage which we have when the Under Secretary speaks, and that is that he is always clear, though he is not always convincing. I have listened to his speech with some interest because I have a recollection that some years ago he treated the subject in a different way. According to his speech to-day we must wait for the Royal Commission.

The Government say so, not I.

Then, Sir, that makes my point all the more important. Whether as Leader of the House or as private Member, the right hon. Gentleman's opinions are far too well founded to change, irrespective of the side on which he may sit. I always read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman with great interest; and therefore when he made a statement to-day about the folly of going to a division on this question before the Royal Commission had reported I thought of another policy he had recommended some years ago. There was an interesting little Bill in 1894 before the House on old age pensions, and the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House the advantage of his opinions upon that Bill. The second reading took place just on the eve of the report of the Royal Commission, and what did he say in reply to the suggestion of the Government that we should wait for the Royal Commission's report? He said:

"He hoped the second reading of the Bill would not be deferred until the Royal Commission's Report, as that would mean the hanging up of the question for another' year; it was an urgent question, at any rate so far as the initial steps were concerned, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would carry the Bill to a division. He (Mr. Collings) should vote with a better heart, and with more pleasure than he thought he had felt with regard to any vote he had ever recorded in his life."

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be obliged to me for reminding him of that declaration, because it is an important justification for the vote I am going to give to-day. I do riot know whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied upon that point, but I have many more. I am not going to trouble him with the quotation of many opinions, I think I have given my best; but I will give him one more, if he is still unconvinced, which I am sure will have some weight—the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, whose absence we deplore, because had he been here I am sure he would have given him his advice. The Secretary for the Colonies spoke at that time as member of the Royal Commission that was just about to report. Speaking on the Bill he said:

"We were dealing with a subject which was quite right for legislation, and with regard to which he thought it would be a great advantage not only to the public at large but also to members of the Royal Commission that some indication of the feeling of that House should be given."

That is our case to-day. We want to give the Royal Commission, even at this late hour, some indication as to what the opinion of the House really is.

While the House has greatly enjoyed the collection of ancient speeches which the hon. Member has just presented, I hope he will not forget not only that circumstances alter cases, but also that there is a great difference between old age pensions and the abolition of privileges which have existed for 40 or 50 years. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the speech which has been quoted, described, and I think rightly described, the question of old age pensions as an urgent one. I venture to describe it as an urgent one still, and to say that only a small number of very estimable but somewhat fanatical persons would describe a question affecting the alteration of the licensing law as an urgent or even an important question. But I protest most strongly against this attempt to interfere with the small licence-holders. We hear a great deal from the other side of the House about big brewers and tied houses. This Bill affects the little man. You are asked to take from the little men privileges which they enjoy, because the majority of small beerhouses are not tied houses. ("Oh!") I adhere to what I said. I know an attempt is being made to make them tied houses, but I say unhesitatingly that the majority of these houses in the country—and I have had great experience on the subject in one of the counties of England—are not tied houses. I know that in London there has been an attempt, and is an attempt, to secure to a larger extent than has hitherto prevailed the principle of tied houses by buying up small beerhouses. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I venture to say that the opinion of Sir Harry Poland on licensing law is at least of equal value to that of the right hon. Gentleman; and he clearly points out that these beerhouses are a vested interest. What does this Bill do? I am constantly hearing, outside the House and inside, that it is the publican who is to be evicted and compensated, and not the brewer, the shareholder, or the capitalist; but this Bill attacks the smallest man of the whole of this great trade or machinery, and practically turns him out into the street. I venture to say that the law as it exists at present is very unjust. While the magistrate who holds shares in a railway company is unable to adjudicate in his own division in matters in which that company is concerned because he is "an interested person," every teetotal advocate, every gentleman who has been put upon the bench for no other reason than that he is an opponent of the licensing interest, or for political services rendered to his party, sits on the licensing committees. These are the people who have carried, practically unanimously, the resolutions in favour of extending their own power. They are, therefore, the resolutions of interested parties—not interested pecuniarily, but in other ways. What I would venture to suggest to the House is that the Debate should now he adjourned. I think we have had enough surprises this afternoon, and I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

I cannot accept it at this hour of the afternoon. If the motion had been made at an early stage, and before the Bill had been fully discussed, it might have been different; but I cannot accept it at this stage, when there is a prospect of an early division.

I cannot help thinking that it would be unfair and unwise OH the part of this House to come to a decision on the Bill which has come before us in such an unexpected manner. I admit at once that there is something anomalous in the state of the law affecting beerhouses and other licensed properties. I can only say that whenever this House, if I am a Member of it, comes to deal with a question which gives greater facility to the securing of justice to publicans, and which in any way advances the cause of temperance, I shall vote for it. But I am bound to confess that, as far as temperance is concerned, I shall draw the line at the point where the liberty of the subject is in any way affected. So far as this Bill is concerned, I venture to think that it cannot be very satisfactory even to the promoters, even if they pass it this afternoon, because it comes before us in such an unexpected manner. I venture to say that neither the right hon. Gentleman opposite who represents the Government nor hon. Members on this side of the House had any idea that this question would come up. If we pass this Bill without compensation to those from whom we take property, all I can say is that the country will not have much respect for the decision arrived at. I venture to say that there is no pressing hurry in this matter. A Royal Commission is about to report. These small houses are as well conducted as any other licensed property. They serve the poorer class of this country, and great harm would be done to that class if this subject were disposed of hurriedly. I quite understand that there can be no reason why a hurried vote should be taken now, and I certainly think that this matter can he left until the Commission which is now sitting has made its Report.

The time has come when it seems desirable that the issue should be put before this House in a definite and concrete form, and I propose to conclude my remarks by moving an Amendment that this Bill shall be read a second time this day three months. It is quite clear, although some hon. Members do not seem to know what the provisions of the Act of 1869 are, that it is a question of justice. It appears to me that no one could come to the conclusion that this Bill was just who understood the provisions of the Act of 1869. The hon. Member for the Lichfield Division evidently does not appreciate the scheme of that Act. It is common knowledge now that the intention of that Act was that in future there should be no fresh grant of Excise beerhouse licences, and that all licences, whether of beerhouses. or houses where other intoxicating liquors were sold, should in future come under the control of the magistrates. That was entirely a new departure. Previous to that time anybody who could get a licence from the Excise could retail beer, and it was felt that if all existing licences of that kind were put under the control of the magistrates the men who had obtained them, and had by carrying on their business acquired a valuable privilege, would be put into an inferior position. In 1869 Parliament had regard to vested interests and vested rights, and it was not thought right that Parliament should take away without compensation that which they had granted. Consequently licences then existing wow preserved under the conditions on which they had been granted. Section 4 of the Act provided for the extinction in future of fresh licences by enacting that no licences or renewals of licences should be granted except on the production of a certificate. Section 6 provided a form of the certificate, which should remain in force for one year. The object of granting the certificate was to preserve the right which the holders of the Excise licences had acquired under the Act of 1869. This Bill seeks to put these licences on the same footing as licences granted by the magistrates, which would place them in an inferior position in point of stability to that which they at present hold. The result of the Act of 1869 was to give that value to beerhouses which has enabled the brewers to have that hold upon them that they have now, and it is under that Act that the tied house system has grown When the licensing laws come to be discussed the tied house question will be one of the great Questions which will have to be dealt with. That is one of the drawbacks to the Act of 1869, but the wisdom of that policy is not now in contention. What we have to deal with on the Bill is a question of justice. Are we now- to take away without compensation rights which were given by Parliament in 1869? Only one hon. Member in the debate has justified that. He said Parliament had impaired some of the rights reserved by the Act of 1869 by the Act of 1884: but I cannot help thinking that there must have been some exceptional ground for the treatment then accorded to certain licences. But, if not, I decline, because Parliament committed an error in 1884, to commit an error now. That being so, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.

This Bill has been on the Order Book for to-day for the last two months and I do not think that it lies in the mouth, of any hon. Member to complain that this question has come on unexpectedly. The Bill is not a party measure, and has been introduced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. All over the country resolutions have been passed in favour of the Bill. The courts of quarter sessions in the most important counties and the licensing benches in the largest towns have passed resolutions in favour of it. They have done so because they have no power to interfere with these beerhouses on several grounds which apply to fully licensed houses. Supposing a beerhouse is insanitary, or devoid of proper sanitary accommodation, the licence cannot be interfered with or taken away; nor can the magistrates interfere if it is conducted in an objectionable manner, or if it is not required to meet the wants of the neighbourhood in which it is situated. Therefore it is not surprising that benches of magistrates, without distinction of political colour, have supported this Bill. The question of compensation which some hon. Members have sought to raise upon this Bill has been settled definitely by a Conservative Government, and I commend the Bill to the support of a large number of hon. Gentlemen on either side of this House who wish to take some step in the direction of licensing reform.

I have come to the conclusion that there is almost an unanimous opinion that these houses, under proper conditions, should be placed under the jurisdiction of the magistrates, and I think the argument brought forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite has brought that out. All this debate comes to is a question of compensation, and I do not think that that comes in at all. This Bill has been spoken of as if it was an abolition bill, which it is not. If this Bill passes there would be no alteration whatever, so far as the beerhouses were concerned, so long as the magistrates in their discretion issued the licences. If at any time the justices exercised their discretion and put down some of these beerhouses, then they would have compensation in the ordinate Way. If compensation is given under a new Act after the Report of the Royal Commission, or by the will of the House, these beerhouses

The main object of this Bill is to abolish the law of primogeniture in Scotland. All reasonable men who are not actuated by prejudice are in favour of the principle of this measure. The law of primogeniture is an anachronism which cannot be defended on any social or political ground, and one that has too long survived on the Statute Book. That being so, I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.

Whatever may be said about the law of primogeniture, I think the House generally will agree that it has lasted so long that it should not be done to death at a quarter past five on a Wednesday afternoon. This Bill does a b lot of other things besides doing away with the law of primogeniture, and will make a considerable change in the position and rights of husbands, wives, and children with respect to heritable property. It goes on with a clause by which it abolishes the possibility of making entails in Scotland. (Hear, hear.) The hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," but I doubt very much whether he has considered what the practical result of the provision would be. While it would leave a man power to tie up his property by deed so far as any property is concerned, so far as the Finance Act is concerned, it would place the unfortunate Scotchman in an infinitely worse position than his English brother. I only mentioned this fact to show that legislation at 5.15 on a Wednesday afternoon is not very safe work, and I do not think my hon. friend can believe seriously that we can take this Bill at such an hour. There are also other considerations of another kind. The House will remember what I attempted to suggest so far as Scotland is concerned. Anyone who wishes to leave his heritable property between his children can do so, if he is so minded. There is no popular force of feeling behind this Bill, and what I venture to say is that when you are going to make a general change in the laws of succession which have been in force a long time, and are well understood, it is a matter which requires very grave consideration. And I may also point out that it is a matter which ought to be taken up by the responsible Government of the day, and not put forward by a, private Bill. I am not complaining that it has been brought forward by a private Bill, but I do say the House can scarcely be expected to pass such a Bill at this time of the day. I beg to move the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

was understood to say: Whether or not the law of primogeniture ought to be abolished is a matter which requires great consideration. It seems to me that this Bill, if passed, is going to alter a law which has been in existence for centuries. (Cries of "Divide.") Hon. Members cry "Divide." As I said before, this Bill, if passed, is going to alter a law which has been in existence for centuries and after a debate of three minutes, when a Member gets up who does not often trouble the House, to express his views upon the subject, hon. Members cry "Divide" It being half-past five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Wednesday, 21st June.