said the Bill which he had the honour to introduce arose from an Amendment moved last session to the Licensing Bill by his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, which provided that any person holding a licence for the. consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises, who refused to supply a reasonable demand for refreshment, should be liable to a fine not exceeding 40s. for the first offence, and not exceeding £5 for the second offence. That Amendment was rejected in a full House by a majority of only nineteen votes, and its principle received a great deal of sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, and many other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Derby. The hon. Members who favoured the principle of the Bill consulted together, and that consultation resulted in the drafting of the present Bill, which was printed, but could not have been introduced last year.

called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present.

As only thirty-one Members are present, I will leave the Chair until a quorum is formed.

resuming, said the Bill was a small one, which did not propose a new law, but made it possible to enforce the present law. Under the common law, an innkeeper was obliged to provide accommodation and refreshment, and his hon. friend's Amendment would have extended that obligation to all holders of licences. It was, however, pointed out that licensed victuallers under the present law were not obliged to sell even intoxicating liquor; and hon. Members who opposed the Amendment last session pointed out that it was absurd to ask a man who was not obliged to sell anything at all, to sell an article he did not profess to sell. The promoters of the Bill saw the difficulty, and accepted the present Bill, which was limited to innkeepers, as a compromise, in the hope that it would have a moral effect which would be far-reaching. The difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler was somewhat subtle. An innkeeper was described by an Act passed in 1863 as a keeper of an inn, but it had been subsequently held that an innkeeper was a man who "holds out" accommodation to travellers who were willing to pay an adequate price for it, provided also that if required they should tender payment in advance. Some doubt existed as to the meaning of the words "holds out," but he presumed that if a man said that he provided accommodation for man and beast, he was clearly an innkeeper, and might be compelled to provide refreshments. He should like to abolish the distinction between a licensed victualler and an innkeeper, because a tavern which was simply a place where liquor was sold and where drinkers were entertained, seemed to him to be unnecessary. A movement was now in progress which had very high support, and which certainly had his sympathy, not to take drink between meals. He certainly should never think of taking drink between meals. But the Bill was not brought in in the interests of people who only wanted tea and bread and butter. There was a great improvement in late years in the small inns throughout the country, which was mainly due to cyclists. When he had to travel about the country on Committees of the County Council, he frequently stopped at a small inn when he wanted something to eat; and he believed nothing would tend more to sobriety than if they made licensed victuallers victuallers in fact as well as in name. A great many people took two, three, and four glasses of beer, when, if they could have bread and cheese also, they would only take one glass. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year said that the arguments in favour of the Amendment were largely drawn from personal experiences, and that, although such experiences were exceedingly valuable, an alteration of the law based on them would not be desirable in the present instance. He remembered when his hon. friend the Member for Flint, whom they were all glad to see in the House again, brought forward a measure with reference to theatres, he was told he ought not to speak about them, because he had not any personal experience, and, therefore, it was difficult to please everyone. The licence of an innkeeper could, of course, be opposed for not supplying refreshments; but he did not think that magistrates would be justified in refusing a licence on that ground. An innkeeper could also be proceeded against by indictment, or he could be sued for damages; but both were very cumbrous methods. The Bill before the House would provide a simple and expeditious means of carrying out the present law. It was not at present proposed to apply the Bill to Scotland or Ireland, as they did not know whether it was wanted there; but if the Scottish or Irish Members manifested a unanimous desire to have Scotland or Ireland included, he did not think the promoters of the Bill would have any objection. He wished to impress on the House that the Bill was not intended to bully or coerce innkeepers. It only proposed to stimulate them to meet the demand which had arisen, and which he believed they were in most cases ready to meet. Even the debate last session did a great deal of good. He himself on that occasion alluded to the refreshment-room at Ipswich, which had been turned into a regular drinking-shop, where no food was to be had unless after ordering it and waiting for it. He did not know whether his speech had been reported in the local papers, but he was glad to be able to state that food was now always obtainable there. An hon. Member said in the debate last session that he had never been in the refreshment-room where he was not able to get a good sandwich. Some refreshment-rooms were very fair, but generally the refreshment-rooms in this country were very inferior to the refreshment-rooms abroad. They quite agreed that if this Bill were allowed to pass there would be less intoxicating liquor consumed, but even if that were so, the innkeeper would make it up in other ways, and he thought if this Bill were allowed a Second Reading it would do more for temperance and sobriety than the coercive measures which were sometimes advocated. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time.

In seconding the Motion said he had only a very few words to add. The Bill was so narrow and affected such small interests that he did not think there was any reason to occupy the time of the House. The Bill was in no sense a temperance measure. Its only object was that young men and women on their holidays through country lanes should be accommodated, if they so wished, to a cup of tea and a slice of bread and butter and an egg, to help them on their journey. If they preferred beer or whisky it would be at their disposal. Cyclists as was well known were in many cases comparatively poor people, who would never see the country except for the use of those wonderful machines. The Bill did not interfere with any rights and privileges of the trade, it only gave people power to assert their right in a particular class of licensed house to have what they required, and that class of house was a class which was compelled by law to give all kinds of refreshments to properly qualified persons. That being so, he appealed to those who took a strong line on the licensing question not to stand in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill, and so defeat for another long period the privileges many thousands of people desired to have. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second. time."

said he had listened with some attention to the earnest appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Leicester, and, so far as he was concerned, would be the last man in the world to interfere with his hon. friend having his cup of tea and slice of bread and butter, and his egg, or even a rasher of bacon and a pot of marmalade. But while he sympathised with his hon. friend, he was of opinion that it was necessary that this Bill should be well considered and thought out before the House allowed it to pass a Second Reading. As he had said, he had no desire to interfere with the comfort and welfare of his hon. friend, nor did he desire to inconvenience the hon. Baronet who had moved the Second Reading, but it appeared to him that this Bill was brought in simply because on one occasion the hon. Baronet had lost his lunch at Ipswich. It was preposterous and offensive to the House that its time should be occupied for hours on a Bill of this kind for such a reason. He thought before he had finished he would show the House that this Bill was absolutely unnecessary, and not only unnecessary but in absolute contravention to the present law of the land, because under the present law every innkeeper supplied the demands of every traveller. Already there was an endeavour to fix what a bond fide traveller really was, and was the House to allow an hon. Member to come to the House with a Bill of this character and define by it what a traveller was and what he was to be supplied with? He thought it was only right to tell the House that a similar Bill was passed some years ago in South Africa, and it led to the most grievous and disastrous consequences. There was a South African millionaire of, he believed, the German Jewish persuasion, who ordered, in a perfectly innocent way, drink without the accompanying luncheon, as provided by the Bill. He was taken before the Courts and charged with contravening the provisions of the Act. When the judge was about to condemn him, the South African German Jewish millionaire turned to his Lordship and said "Sir, there was nothing but pork to eat, and I prefer to keep the law of Moses than the law of the land." With that touching spectacle of the South African millionaire before them, they were asked to agree to a similar Bill which would act very hardly on people of different religions. The hon. Gentleman had told them that the provisions of this Act should not apply to a traveller when he was intoxicated. He quite agreed with the hon. Member in that view, but having stated that reasonable provision the hon. Gentleman went on to say "or for any other cause whatsoever." That alone demonstrated that the Bill, which had been brought in a very unfinished state would give rise to every sort of complication. The hon. Member had referred to the Licensing Act of 1902 and had mentioned the word "innkeeper," but he did not define the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler. Section 9 of the Act of 1902 set forth in a very clear form that on a conviction before the Court it should be the duty of the Clerk to the Justices to enter notice of such conviction. The hon. Member must confess that his Bill must fall short of what was necessary, because it did not explain the definition of an innkeeper, or the difference between an innkeeper and a licensed victualler, and this Bill was only applicable to one of them. He was sure that not even one of the teetotal party of the House desired to go back on the solemn compact of last year or to do anything in contravention of the Licensing Act of 1902. Then the hon. Gentleman had cited an Act as old as Methuselah, and entitled the Innkeepers Act of 1863. He (Major Jameson) was only ten years old at the time and had no recollection of that measure, and he did not anticipate that more than two or three other hon. Members would be better informed of its provisions than himself. The House would certainly take the view that the hon. Member was taking a very unfair advantage in citing that Act, because, whilst he thus imposed fresh liabilities on the innkeeper, the hon. Gentleman made no attempt to take away any of the old liabilities under that measure. The hon. and gallant Member proceeded to quote at length from the 1863 Act, when—

, the greater part of whose speech was inaudible in the press gallery, seconded the Amendment. He said that the term "innkeeper" had a broader meaning than was usually attached to it, in that it applied to any place of refreshment, and he contended that it was hardly fair that all such persons should be compelled to provide board and lodging to any traveller who might happen to be in the neighbourhood. Moreover, the term "refreshment" was very vague, and ought to be better defined. "Licensed person," embraced every individual who held any form of licence whatever, so persons who held off-licences or licences for the sale of wines and spirits in bottles, would be compelled to supply refreshments. The hon. Member was quoting from various Acts of Parliament in support of his rendering of the meaning of the different terms, when—

asked whether the hon. Member, by quoting Acts of Parliament, was not contravening the ruling already given from the Chair.

I was unable to hear what the hon. Member was saying.

The hon. Member is going too far. It is a very simple matter. Clause 7 defines the term, "licensed victualler," by reference to a previous Act, and the hon. Member is entitled to comment on the definition there referred to, but further than that he cannot go.

said he should not follow the hon. Member for Meath in his meanderings through several Acts of Parliament. This Bill did not define what was meant by "traveller" and the definition of "innkeeper" appeared to be that very elementary one that an innkeeper was the keeper of an inn. The hon. Member had read part of the section giving the definition of an "inn" as meaning any hotel, inn, tavern, public-house or other place of refreshment, but he did not call attention to the qualifying words—

"The keeper of which is now by law responsible for the goods and property of his guests,"

these words considerably limiting the scope of the definition. The hon. Member for Clare said the hon. Member for North Norfolk wished to promote this Bill because he did not succeed in getting a luncheon at Ipswich, but he hoped that the ventilation of this subject in the House would make innkeepers realise that it was highly desirable they should supply refreshments of a reasonable kind when they were asked for. What was the reason given? There had been instances given—not in this debate possibly, but in a debate which took place previously, where many instances were brought before the notice of the House—of country districts where a large body of their fellow countrymen who took pleasure in riding bicycles went to these various inns, and had been refused reasonable refreshments of a temperance character, although they had been offered a glass of beer. It seemed to him that this was a grievance, and in their own interests it would be wise for the innkeepers to supply reasonable refreshments. If the proprietors of the village inns woke up to the necessities of the case, and provided reasonably clean and comfortable accommodation, he thought they would find their trade, instead of falling off, rapidly increase. The grievance undoubtedly was that they did not supply such refreshments as were wanted. There had been complaints that they did not supply the accommodation which the public desired. What had been the remedy in the past? The remedies had been of a very cumbrous nature; that was to say, it had been necessary to proceed by indictment, or to lay a complaint at the Brewster Sessions against the holder of the licence. Both of these forms of proceeding were very cumbrous. The Brewster Sessions were not held often, and the only remedy they could apply was of too drastic a nature. It would involve the loss of the licence if the innkeeper refused to give such reasonable accommodation as he was bound by law to give. He stated the law with the greatest diffidence in presence of his right hon. friend, but he thought no one could dispute that at Common Law a man who kept an inn was bound, if he had accommodation, to receive and provide food for a traveller, and that he might be indicted or be liable to an action if he refused to receive a traveller when he had accommodation and could make no reasonable excuse. It appeared to him that the best remedy would be to inflict a penalty on summary conviction, instead of by the more cumbrous methods he had indicated. Whether the penalty was too severe or not he did not venture to offer an opinion. He might say, generally speaking for the Department, that they did not oppose this Bill, but undoubtedly it would require, at a future stage, very considerable alterations to bring it into harmony with the views of the Government.

said he was glad to hear that the Government did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. He was sure that it was very acceptable that such a measure as this should be sent for consideration by the Grand Committee on Law. The hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading of the Bill said he had no objection, and it had occurred to him that it might be possible to obtain something of a similar nature introduced into the Licensing Bill for Scotland which the Lord Advocate introduced last Wednesday. He did not know whether it would he better to have a clause in the Licensing Bill, or that the Bill now before the House should be made applicable to Scotland. Ipswich was not the only place where people could not get lunch without having something to drink. He knew that Americans who came to Ayrshire to see the haunts of Burns were very much surprised on visiting "Poosie Nansie's" that they could not get a biscuit to eat without getting at the same time a glass of whiskey.

said he was advised that the Bill made no real alteration in the law as it stood. The object of the Bill was to make the law easier of application. In past times there had been considerable difficulty in obtaining refreshments in remote parts of the country. This grievance had been a standing one of the Cyclists' Union for a long time. He thought he might say that of recent years the difficulty had very considerably diminished, and that there would be great difficulty now in finding cases in any part of the country where reasonable refreshments could not be obtained, or where it would be refused to any one asking for it reasonably. On behalf of the trade with which he was connected he might say that they had no reason to oppose the Bill. They agreed with the principle of it, and so far as they had been able to bring their influence to bear they had already been trying to carry out what was now proposed. The hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government suggested that the Bill would require some alteration in detail in order to make its provisions easier of application. He might say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they would be happy to accept Amendments to make the Bill more workable.

expressed his entire agreement with the hon. Member who had just spoken in what he had said as to this Bill not really altering the substance of the law as it at present stood. With the general object in view on the part of the promoters, he thought everyone would be in entire sympathy. It was most desirable that people going about the country should be able to get such refreshments as they wanted, and not only intoxicating liquors. He was glad to know that the habit was spreading of providing such refreshments for those who desired them, and he believed personally, that the great security for what was right in this matter being done, was that publicans would find it to be to their interest to meet the wishes of persons who were travelling, and that the self-interest of those engaged in the trade would lead them to discover that the wise and proper thing was to provide such refreshments as were wanted. With regard to the scope of the Bill, he thought he ought to point out that it was a great deal more limited than many hon. Members seemed to think. It applied only to England, and the definition in the last clause had, he thought, the effect of limiting the application of the Bill merely to inns properly so-called, that was to say, to establishments where lodging as well as refreshments was provided for travellers.

That is the intention of the Bill.

said it appeared to him from what had fallen from the speakers who had preceded, that the Bill was only declaratory of the common law. As his right hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had said, it had been decided that the obligation on an innkeeper did not apply to an ordinary restaurant keeper nor to a publican, and he ventured to say that it did not apply to the keeper of a railway refreshment-room either. The main feature of the Bill, which would require to be very closely watched in Committee, was Section 4, which provided that whenever a licensed person was convicted of an offence under this Act, the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1902 in regard to the endorsement of the licence with a conviction under it should apply. That was a very drastic penalty for an innkeeper refusing to supply, say, a cup of tea or coffee. At the same time he thought that one of the greatest incentives to temperance would be that every licensed victualler should be bound to supply tea or coffee at the request of those who entered his house. Such a provision would go further to promote, the cause of temperance than any penal. legislation Parliament could pass; and as. this Bill went in that direction, though not the whole way, he would give the Second Reading his support.

said that this Bill did not apply to Ireland, but he thought it should receive the support of every Member of the House. Everything which would, encourage our young boys and girls to go into the country for fresh air and healthy recreation ought to be encouraged, and there was nothing in the Bill to which any respectable innkeeper should object. The first sub-Section said that an innkeeper must supply the reasonable demand of every traveller, and he took it that tea and coffee and food should be included. Speaking as practically a temperance man, he urged that the innkeeper should be obliged to supply him, if he wanted it, with a glass of beer, which he rather liked, or a half-of-whiskey if he so desired it. He spoke from that which had come under his own observation in this regard. There were numbers of cycling clubs in the big cities, the members of which took a run of forty or fifty miles into the country on a Sunday. If a cyclist had his tyre punctured and was unable to get on, why should that unfortunate individual be compelled to travel all night, pushing his bicycle in front of him, without the right to ask from an innkeeper reasonable accommodation? It should be the duty of the innkeeper to supply the unhappy cyclist with a succulent steak, a rasher of bacon, or eggs, tea, and marmalade, or accommodation for the night if necessary. That that should not be the case at the present moment was a crying evil; and if the Bill were passed he believed that there would be less drunkenness in the country at the present time. Of course there was no idea when it was asked that in an inn accommodation should be provided for man and beast, that that included a pack of hounds; but reasonable refreshment was what was asked for the traveller or cyclist. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for North Meath that there were several anomalies in the Bill, but these could be remedied in Committee.

agreed with the hon. Member for East Clare that they ought to come very soon to a division. He supported this Bill because he had had very considerable experience of cycling in the southern counties of England, and had on many occasions suffered exceedingly from inability to get such refreshment as he required—even his favourite soda and milk. There were some proposals in the Bill which would have to be considered, but he would suggest that the proper time for that would be in Committee. For instance, an innkeeper should not be permitted to supply board and lodging which a traveller could not accept. There should be some penalty to meet that. As he had said, he would vote for the Bill; and as he was anxious that a division should be taken as soon as possible he would not say anything further.

, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, said he should not take up much of the time of the House in pointing out the absolute necessity for the Measure. In the year 1888 the subject of early closing of licensed houses was referred to a Select Committee of that House, and again in 1896 a Royal Commission inquired into the question, and both bodies recommended and reported that there was an absolute necessity, in the interest of the people, for closing licensed houses on Saturday evenings at nine o'clock instead of eleven. This was intended to apply to the towns and cities of Ireland, and particularly for the benefit and advantage of the wives and children of the ordinary working men, who were addicted to drinking on Saturday nights. In the working man's home there was little to attract him or meet his desires during his hours of leisure. But there were outside, in the streets of the towns and cities, gin palaces, saloons, and bars erected at enormous expenditure; the working man visited such places and partook of their grog and liquors, and they all knew the result that often followed. The keeper of one of these places said to him once that he did not invite people to come into his house, but when they did they were supplied with what they asked for, and if they took more than was good for them, well, more was the pity. He did not take this view at all. His argument was this. The gin palaces were kept open for the people, and so people came in to partake of drink. It was true that the people were not actually invited to come in, any more than rats and mice and other creatures were invited to enter the traps and cages prepared for them, but there was no doubt that the licensed houses were purposely kept open.

Does the baker not do the same thing—keep open his shop?

The baker is a strict necessity—the publican is not. His house was now made interesting and pleasant with phonographs and gramophones; and some of the most beautiful young women in the land were employed as barmaids. He held that if men could be made to drink to excess by legislation they could be made sober by legislation, By shortening the hours on Saturday nights there would be fewer hours in which drink could be consumed. He was not intending to say for a moment that because a man went into a public house occasionally he was not leading a respectable life; but when a man showed the weakness and want of will power which allowed drink to overcome him, and neglected the duties of his home life, he (Mr. Sloan) thought that the reduction of the hours of keeping open on the Saturday night was highly desirable, and should be enacted. He had seen cases of intoxication in the streets of Belfast at eleven o'clock at night, the children standing by the father and the mother crying on the other side of him. In certain parts of Belfast, after eleven o'clock on Saturday nights, the hairdressers, and some of their young men not only had to work into the small hours of Sun day morning, in order to make those who had been drinking respectable, but had to open again for the same purpose for an hour or two later in the day. If there was one argument more than another he desired to lay stress upon it was that the public, independent of class or creed, demanded that these houses should be closed earlier. Mr. Sloan proceeded to read extracts from the evidence given before a Select Committee on the ques- tion in 1888. On that occasion the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary said—

"It is patent to everyone that on Saturday night there is more drinking than on any other night of the week, because men are generally paid their wages on Saturdays, and though intending to spend them only in making proper purchases, they very often spend their money foolishly."

The General Inspector of Belfast said—

"I think you will find no persons in Belfast, with the exception of a very few, not even excepting the publicans themselves, who would object to an early hour of closing on Saturdays I think nine o'clock is a fairly reasonable and very moderate hour."

The Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police said—

"I know the Roman Catholic clergy are strongly in favour of closing early on Saturday night."

Mr. Charles Joseph O'Donnell, a former Chief Inspector of Dublin, said—

"I think it would be a very good thing to say that the public houses shall be closed now at ten o'clock, and then to give fair warning that at the end of a certain period they will be closed at an earlier hour."

Mr. W. Davis, a former District Inspector of Belfast, said—

"If the public houses were closed at nine o'clock on Saturday nights a great portion of the drinking would be done away with. As the hour gets late the number of arrests becomes larger."

Showing that there were a larger number of arrests by the police on Saturday night, through late drinking, than on any other night of the week.

What does the Inspector say about the Custom House steps? [Cries of "Order."]

It was not the drink that brought me to prison, any way.

failed to understand what weighty-objections there could be to the Bill. So far back as 1888 a Select Committee of that House approved the terms contained in this Bill, and reported that in their opinion a great deal of excessive drunkenness, which had been proved to have taken place on Saturday night, would be avoided by the earlier closing of public houses on that day. They further reported that they were satisfied that such a measure would be supported by public opinion generally throughout Ireland. The Committee recommended among other things that all houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors should be closed at 9 p.m. on Saturdays. Then, in 1890, the Royal Commission on Licensing, under the presidency of Lord Peel, unanimously reported in favour of having public-houses closed at nine o'clock on Saturdays. In 1897 a memorial was presented to the then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland asking him to use his influence with the Government of the day to have this Bill passed into law. That memorial was signed by sixteen Roman Catholic Bishops, thirteen Protestant Bishops, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Synod, the Vice-President of the Methodist Conference, fifteen of the nobility, twenty-one Members of Parliament, 1,036 clergymen, 1,018 magistrates, 291 doctors, 207 poor law guardians and town commissioners, and 1,117 merchants and employers. It was also signed at twenty seven large public meetings of temperance bodies, and by many thousands of people in Ireland. He ventured to say that since that memorial was presented public opinion had become greatly in favour of this Bill. It had the approval and support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergymen of Ireland, and, so far as he was aware, the only party in Ireland who protested against it was the Association of Licensed Grocers and Vintners. As compared with the present law, the Bill only gave two hours earlier for closing than usual, for one night in the week, in the cities and large towns, and one hour earlier in towns with a population of less than 5,000, and in rural districts. Was that too much of a concession to ask the Trade to make on behalf of the public good? He held that an incalculable amount of good would be accomplished by the closing of licensed premises at that time, chiefly because of the surrounding circumstances. It was during the last hours that the temptations were the strongest. After the labours of the week the working man had his earnings in his pocket, and at the close of his evening meal he would take a walk. Perhaps he would meet a fellow worker and ask him to have a drink, and with the system of treating, as every one knew, the result was that both men would stay in the public-house until a late hour, probably until closing time. They would then go home muddled and intoxicated, not thinking or caring about the morrow, and quite regardless of the duty they owed to their religion and their country. In that way they spent money which was wanted for food and clothing by their wives and families. It was with the object of lessening the temptations that beset these poor people that this Bill was introduced. The Bishop of Limerick was asked to attend a meeting held under the auspices of the Irish Association for the Prevention of Intemperance in Dublin, last February, and in a letter of regret at not being able to attend, his Lordship said he was convinced of the immense amount of good the Bill would effect at a minimum of loss and inconvenience, and it would be regarded as a very great blessing by an overwhelming majority of the population. Throughout last year and the early part of the present year meetings were held under the auspices of that Association, and resolutions were passed thereat in favour of the Bill. It might be argued by members of the Trade that if public-houses were closed earlier on Saturday nights' men would resort to clubs and shebeens for drink. With that view he did not agree, and he did not think it could be said of the great majority of Irish people. As a rule they did not drink for the love of drink, although, of course, there were drinkers of the type who in England would be on the black list. Let them judge the Bill on its merits, and on its merits alone. If men went into shebeens they violated the law, and it was the duty of the authorities to cope with the evil. If they resorted to clubs and drank to excess, the sooner steps were taken to regulate clubs, as was done in England, the better it would be for the country. Another reason why the Bill should become law was, that it would give a much needed test to the bartenders, who were on their feet from early morning until late at night, and worked harder than those employed in any other business. A further argument used against the Bill was that, as grocery and spirit businesses were so mixed up in Ireland, it would be unfair to close the public-houses at nine o'clock. In answer to that argument he held that it ought not to be impossible to separate one business from the other. Public good should be placed before private interests. In all reforms it happened that a certain class was inconvenienced, bu in this case, owing to the widespread development of the Saturday half holiday, housewives had not to wait until night to do their shopping. These were the reasons why he supported the Bill. He did so from purely patriotic motives. He saw his country drained of its wealth yearly. Between thirteen and fourteen millions were spent on drink in Ireland every year. He had seen young men of ability of respectable parents go down in the battle of life owing to the cursed vice of drunkenness, and, knowing those facts, he would do all he could to further the cause of a Temperance Bill. He believed that a sober Ireland meant an industrial Ireland, in which men of brains and strong and brawny arms, would devote their intellect and strength in promoting the prosperity of their country, and striving for its regeneration. He supported the Bill because it would do something in that direction by re- moving the temptation, to which working men were at present exposed, to stay in the public-house drinking and carousing until a late hour on Saturday nights, when their proper place was in their homes.

, in moving "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months," said he was satisfied that his hon. friends had not grasped the difficulties surrounding this subject, as they had not the experience of Members who lived in the cities, and who knew what the result of passing such a Bill would be. The report of the Inquiry of 1888, to which allusion had been made, was framed, not by Irish Members, but very largely by Members representing England. Why, therefore, if there was cause for complaining of over-drinking on the part of the working classes, did they not first endeavour to make the Bill applicable to their own country? He defied anybody to propose such a measure for England; the English people would not stand it for twenty-four hours; and he strongly objected to Ireland being made the ground for such an experiment. It was an insult to Ireland, as it declared us to be a drunken people. The Bill was not backed by public opinion, and, if passed, would simply result in greater injury, immorality, and drunkenness. If its promoters had taken advantage of their opportunity to introduce proposals for extending to Ireland the Acts for dealing with habitual drunkards and clubs, they would have met with much sympathy and support, but instead of that they had chosen to bring in a Bill which was strongly opposed in the country. What they had to complain of in Ireland were the bogus clubs and shebeens, and if the hon. Member had first dealt with those, he might then have some claim to propose this further measure. Living in a city he knew what happened after eleven o'clock at night when the respectable houses closed. It was then that the bogus clubs reaped their harvest. Men stayed in them all night, then went home for an hour or two, and returned to stay the remainder of the day. That was why on the Monday morning employers of labour, overseers and managers, had such difficulty in getting their men to work. He was as anxious as anyone to see a sober Ireland; he knew the terrible effects of drunkenness; but, with his knowledge of what the result of its provisions would be, he could not support such a measure as that before the House. It was true, as had been stated, that the drink-seller did not compel people to enter his establishment. But it was far better to have a respectable public-house, to which a man might go if he wished, or take a friend whom he had met, where he could obtain good drink, without the risk of being poisoned by the stuff served at some of the places to which he might otherwise be driven. The Bill was supposed to be one dealing with the liquor traffic, hut in the country places in Ireland the groser at whose establishment the liquor was sold, was frequently the butcher, baker, tea seller, and draper; therefore, if he had to close early on Saturday night all these other commodities would be affected. Even though a sacrifice were made for the public good, as the hon. Member for Limerick suggested, by the making of structural alterations to divide the one part of the business from the other, it should be remembered there was a re-valuation question in Ireland, and every structural alteration would have to be re-valued and much hardship thereby inflicted. He claimed to be fortified in his attitude on this matter by the working men of Dublin. When President of the Trades Council of that city he was sent to give evidence before the Parliamentary Committee, with a mandate to protest against Sunday and early Saturday night closing. It would not be correct to say there was not a section of the community in favour of the Bill. There was, for instance, the class of people who attended the Rotunda meeting to which reference had been made, but they were the people who would not allow a man to have a glass of beer at all, and such, he thought, were not the people to deal with a question of this kind. The only meeting of a public nature that had been held in connection with the matter was one of working men of Dublin in Phoenix Park, at which resolutions strongly condemning the proposal were passed.

asked when that meeting was held.

, continuing, said that not only did the hon. Member for West Limerick not represent the majority of the Irish Members on this question, but he doubted whether he represented his own constituency. He, on the other hand, was supported by the Chief Magistrate of the City of Dublin, and the other members for the City and county, two of whom were teetotalers. It was an insult to the people of Ireland to suggest that such legislation was required to make them sober; it was coercion, pure and simple. He denied that public opinion in Ireland was in favour of the Bill. There had been twenty-seven meetings of magistrates held in the cause of temperance, and, with the exception of two, there was no allusion to Saturday closing. The two exceptions were Derry and Galway, and it should be remembered that in Galway the houses already had to close early. If the Bill were passed, people who had money in their pockets and desired drink would be compelled to take bottles home, where the wives and children would probably then have a share, while others would go to the clubs and shebeens. The late Mr. Parnell had spoken very strongly against the principle of the measure, and his opinion ought surely to have some weight with the Members of the Irish Nationalist Party. Mr. Parnell, in his speech at the time a similar Bill was before the House, said on the question of the experiment being made in Ireland of licensing legislation that—

"The Bill will come to Ireland as a patronising attempt on the part or the majority of the English Members in the House of Commons to make the Irish people sober. The Irish people will naturally say,' Make yourselves sober first.' Why should this experiment be made upon the body of the Irish people? Perhaps on the principle of fiat experimentum in corpore; vili. Anything is good enough for Ireland, no matter how doubtful its character. No doubt that is the view of the great majority of the Liberal Party in the House, but a measure conceived under such auspices is foredoomed to failure. The Irish people will naturally say' This is a part of the insolent system to which we have been accustomed for so many years on the part of the English nation; and we decline to believe in our excessive drunkenness in comparison with our kind English friends.' The Irish people will doubt the bond-fides of this measure, and will do their best to circumvent it, as the measures in existence have already been circumvented."

In pointing out that no exceptional circumstances had arisen for such drastic legislation, the same speaker said, and I commend his words to those members of my Party who are supporting this Bill. He said—

"No one would dare to propose such a measure as this for any English city, and surely English Liberals and Radicals, who have pledged themselves to the principle of Home Rule, and who denounce all English legislation for Ireland on the ground that it comes in a foreign garb, might have waited for some cases to be set up of exceptional intemperance before they support this Coercion Bill, for it is one.

Is any case made out for doing for these Irish cities and towns what would not be done in the ease of any large English city? No attempt has ever been made to show in the case of these Irish towns that there is any exceptional drunkenness or crime arising out of intemperance."

Since Mr. Parnell's speech statistics had shown that crime and drunkenness had been on the decrease in Ireland, and the measures at the disposal of the Executive were quite sufficient to deal with this question. The licensed dealers, if they had any regard for their business, would only be too delighted to see drunkenness stamped out. The drunkard was of no use to any house, for he generally had no money, and the licensed trader would be delighted to keep the like of him out of the house. He could not allow the extracts read by the hon. Member for South Belfast to go unchallenged. He would quote to the House opinions showing that the men of Ireland were as anxious as anyone else to keep down drunkenness, but they were also anxious to keep free from the consequences and risks which might follow in the wake of this Bill if it became law. The Most Rev. Dr. Walsh, the Archbishop of Dublin, gave his opinion upon bogus clubs. The hon. Member for South Belfast said there was no such thing as bogus clubs in Belfast, but he ventured to prophesy that if this Bill were passed they would spring up like mushrooms. He could not believe that Englishmen would attempt to pass such legislation as this, in direct opposition to the views and feelings of the people of Ireland. The Archbishop of Dublin, speaking of bogus clubs, said—

"Within the last few months the evils of the 'Bogus Club' system in Dublin have been largely increased. Those evils are already growing at a rate sufficiently rapid to make every true friend of temperance in our city view with alarm the possibility of anything being done that could tend to the further development of so ruinous a system. The so called Sunday Closing Bill, if passed into law, could not fail to lead to a disastrous development of it. I am therefore, strenuously opposed to the enactment of such a measure. I am, in fact, opposed to the imposition of further restrictions of any kind upon the licensed trade in Dublin, so long as the present system of absolutely unlicensed trading in the 'Bogus Clubs' is allowed by law to continue."

This, then, was the view at that time of one of the most eminent divines in Ireland, and I have no reason to think that he has changed them since. The Mayor of Waterford (Mr. Toole) said in his evidence before the same Commission that—

"Shebeen drinking and drinking in low public-houses after hours would be increased by the closing of public-houses totally on Sundays."

His hon. friend the Member for South-East Cork, speaking as the President of the Cork Trades Council, said—

"Being personally interested in total abstinence, I have made it my business to look round the City and go into the lowest dens and the highest hotels, and T think that there is very little shebeening in Cork. There is a little, but probably there would be a great deal more if the houses were closed on Sundays. The great majority are in favour of leaving things as they are."

He also gave evidence himself, and speaking as the mouthpiece of the Dublin Trades Council and the Irish Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade, he said—

"If you close the public-houses men who want to get drink will go into what are called beerhouses and other houses of doubtful fame, where beer is sold on the quiet, and this would be productive of immorality. If you introduce home drinking it would be a temptation to the wives and children of our families to join in it, and from being sober wives, as we wish them to be, they would possibly become drunkards."

The men who were attempting to pass this Bill into law could take their friends into legitimate clubs, but working men had few such clubs, and he would rather see them not go into these clubs at all. But even the legitimate clubs ought to be under the supervision of the Act. What made him take a strong stand upon this was that the class of club he spoke of was springing up in the City, which it was taking all the time of the police to try to put a stop to. In his evidence the Mayor of Limerick said—

"I believe that the people who want drink will get it, and there will be a supply created to meet the demand. I am thoroughly opposed to Sunday closing, and with regard to early Saturday night closing I do not give any opinion at present, but I express this opinion of the city through its proper channel, the Corporation and the Trades, as being totally opposed to any change with regard to Saturday closing, and in that opinion I concur."

The Congregated Trades of Limerick passed a Resolution in the following terms—

"We are strongly of opinion that if such a Bill becomes law, its results would be to encourage the illicit trade and lead to the system of introducing drink into the houses of the people, and spread very extensively the contaminating vice of intemperance."

The Chief Police Magistrate of Dublin says—

"I think the number of shebeen houses would increase very considerably if you shut up the public houses altogether, or shut them up too early on Saturday night."

The Rev. Dr. Tynan, the parish priest of St. Michael's and St. John's, Dublin, says—

"The result of closing the public-houses at ten o'clock or at nine o'clock on the Saturday night would be to throw open the shebeens to the people who would otherwise drink in the public-house."

Mr. Ward, one of the superintendents of the Dublin Police Force, said—

"That a curtailment of the hours on Saturday night, or the extension of the present Act to Dublin, would lead to the increasing of shebeening."

Mr. Charles Dawson's opinion was—

"To my mind the Act would lead to improper drinking at home and in places far away from powers of observation."

Sir David Harrel, the Under Secretary for Ireland, and formerly Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, was asked if the closing of public-houses would lead to the establishment of drinking clubs, and he replied—

"I think it would tend to. I should think that would be a very possible consequence, and I think the consequence would be disastrous. To close public-houses on Saturday nights at nine o'clock would result in a very great inconvenience to the Dublin public within the city boundary."

And lastly, the Dublin United Trades' Council and Labour League resolved—

"That we protest against the closing of the public-houses in Ireland on Sundays and early closing on Saturdays, and we believe it to be an uncalled for and coercive measure, and we call upon our representatives in Parliament to oppose the Bill."

He thought he had now said sufficient to show that the hon. Member for Belfast had not all the opinions on his side in favour of Saturday closing. His experience was that the greatest evils arose from illicit drinking, which took place after the public-houses were closed, in bogus clubs and other places. He would advise those who were so anxious for temperance legislation to visit some of the clubs and see for themselves what was being done there. Before they attempted to pass this Bill they should first have attempted to give Ireland the benefit of the Bill which they had passed for England a trial in Ireland, and if it failed, then there might be some reason to ask for Saturday closing. If they did that they might expect a more favourable reception from hon. Members on his side of the House, who were as anxious to see Ireland sober as hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was as much opposed to the long hours worked in public houses as hon. Members opposite, and would be prepared to support any Bill brought in to limit them, but at the same time he objected to the legislation which was now proposed, as he honestly believed it would only increase the evil which its promoters hoped to cure. He therefore hoped the House would adopt the Amendment standing in his name. He moved it.

seconded the Amendment. The speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was one of the strongest he had ever listened to. On the one side they had heard matters of fact, and on the other side they had been asked to pity the drunken father in Belfast with ten children clinging to him singing, "Father, dear father, come home." He had always been lead to think that the people of Belfast were sober people. He wished to remind the House that most of those licensed houses were also grocers and bakers, and, therefore, by this Bill they would stop a man buying the necessaries of life after a certain hour. This measure would mean practically that they would be asking these people to rebuild their premises, so as to make one side a licensed shop and the other a grocer's shop. It was a fallacy to assume that the people of Ireland would ever consent to such a thing. Ireland consumed less wines and spirits than England or Scotland, but this Bill would stamp Ireland as being a drunken country, where the working classes were unable to take care of themselves. Could any measure be more absurd? He felt sure that the passing of this Bill would drive the working classes into the haunts of vice and crime. Allowing men to drink in these licensed places was far more likely to lead to temperance than attempting to prevent them getting what they desired, and thus driving them into those wretched shebeens. It was a well-known fact that Saturday was the pay-day in most of the manufacturing towns in Ireland. Many working men received their money late on Saturday, and according to the proposal now before the House they were no longer to be allowed to do their shopping and to purchase the necessaries of life after nine o'clock. If the House passed this Bill on what shoulders would this enormous deprivation and punishment be placed? Not on the shoulders of hon. Gentlemen who put their names on the back of the Bill. They had their own cellars. If they were of the temperance persuasion they were simply condemning what they regarded as the sins of others. They would not allow a commodity which others regarded as a necessity because they disliked it themselves. The promoters of this kind of legislation did not go to the great root of the evil by providing inducements for the workingman to remain in his own home. He thought the House would agree with him that the first thing the hon. Member for South Belfast ought to have done, when he had the opportunity on a Friday afternoon, was to bring in a Bill for the housing of the working classes instead of bringing in a Bill which would interfere with working men's freedom. He had yet to learn that the House of Commons, which refused Home Rule to Ireland and would not allow the Irish people to legislate for themselves, was going to do such a grossly unfair act as to pass this Bill, which was directed against the soberest portion of the three kingdoms. He asked the House in the name of common-sense to refuse to penalise the traders of Ireland by enacting that their shops should be closed at nine o'clock, because it suited a few faddists to say that they should be so closed. He hoped the House would, by an overwhelming majority, reject the Bill, because he believed it was a measure which would undoubtedly send working men into the haunts of vice and crime. In Dublin 30,000 visits had been paid by the police in one year to licensed premises, but the convictions for breaches of the law only amounted to ten. In the face of that fact were they going to say that Dublin was a drunken city, and that public-houses should be closed at nine o'clock? He asked the House in the name of freedom not to place on the backs of the Trade in Ireland a burden which they would not dare to put on the Trade in England and Scotland.

I wish to say that no publican or anyone else has put pressure on me.

said the matter before the House had already been thoroughly discussed on this and other occasions, and therefore he thought a division might be taken. He believed he could speak with some little authority on this matter, because it was one on which he had not always held exactly the same opinion. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had stated that he had been nearly twenty years in the House. He himself had been somewhat longer in the House; and during all that time this Question had been in one way or another brought up and discussed. There were always Members who argued that the early closing of public-houses on Saturday and closing on Sunday were not the proper methods of proceeding with temperance reform. He confessed that when he was a young man he was influenced by these arguments, but he had waited for twenty years for those Gentlemen to bring forward proposals which would be more efficacious and generally acceptable than those which had been made from time to time, but he had never heard any such proposals. He was profoundly convinced of the absolute necessity for something being done, not to prevent the Irish people from being more drunken than the people of this or any other country, for they were nothing of the kind, but to make it easier for men to preserve their sobriety and their money for the benefit of their families and the welfare of the country generally. He was not one of those who imagined that the proper way to proceed in this matter was to cast reflections upon the gentlemen connected with the licensed trade in Ireland. He knew many of them, and they were upright and honourable traders in their line of business. They were endeavouring to safeguard their interests, as was only natural, and he had no attack to make upon them. On the contrary, he believed a great number of them would not object to this measure if they thought it would do something to promote the general cause of temperance. When he was recently in the United States he was profoundly impressed with the position of the people of the Irish race, who had carefully guarded themselves in this matter of temperance They were prosperous, wealthy, and generally respected. In America he had a hard time answering attacks on the cause he represented, but he was fairly well able to hold his own. When, however, he was from time to time confronted with the statement that in Ireland between seventy and eighty million dollars were spent every year in drink, he found that he was unable to give anything which could possibly be considered by the friends of Ireland, an adequate explanation of that fact. Although per head of the population the Irish were more temperate than the Scotch and English, he believed they spent more in drink than they could afford, for their taxable capacity was not as great. He believed that the hon. Member for South Tyrone—whose bitter enemy he had been for many years in this House—was correct in stating that the vast majority of the Irish people were at one on this measure. The op- position to the Bill came from the Trade, and not from the people. The people had not held meetings to oppose the Bill.

With reference to this Bill?

A Bill of a similar character.

said he would not make a speech of any considerable length on this subject. He need hardly say that he did not rise on behalf of the Irish Government, but simply as an Irish Member, representing an Irish constituency, to a large extent composed of clergy of the Irish Church, to which he belonged. So far as his constituents were concerned he was well aware that they were absolutely in agreement with the hon. Member, who had just sat down, when he said that this very modest measure ought to be passed as soon as possible. And with that opinion he himself entirely agreed. He thought it was almost a scandal that this simple proposal to shorten the closing hours of public houses on Saturday evenings, which had been recommended by a Committee of this House so far back as 1888, had never been put on the Statute Book. Really one would think from the opposition offered in some quarters that they were going to revolutionise the whole liquor business in Ireland, and do it a treat injury. This was a small reform; he wished it had gone much further; but such as it was, it was a step in the right direction, and in his own belief was wanted. His conviction was that temperance reform in this country and in Ireland had often been thwarted because reformers tried to do too much at a time.

said he had a feeling of great regret at being separated on this question from some of his colleagues, for whom he had personal esteem and affection. But there were certain cases in which it was cowardly to give a silent vote, and the present occasion was one of these. He invited the attention of the House to the fact that not one of the supporters of the Bill had given any definite proof that the public opinion of Ireland was at their back. In his own constituency he had, since his election, received scores of communications from County Councils, District Councils, Urban Councils, Associations, and individuals on every imaginable subject; he had had resolutions forwarded to him about university education, financial relations, and many other things; but not one single resolution by a representative body asking him to support the Bill now under discussion. That was evidence that there was no overwhelming and burning desire in favour of this Measure, as had been claimed for it by some hon. Members. On a question of this kind, when they had an organisation with money and brains at its back, it was easy to get up favourable meetings in Cork, Belfast, or Dublin, but he would have preferred if the mover, seconder, and supporters of the Second Reading of the Bill had been in a position to read out resolutions in its favour from County Councils and other popular bodies elected by ballot. Something had been said about shebeening. He had often heard the argument used that if shebeens continued to exist it was because those responsible failed to administer the law; but he contended that if the shebeening, which he believed would be the immediate effect of the passing of this Bill, were to be put down, they would have to arm the constabulary of Ireland with such powers, to enter into any house in any town or village in the country, day or night, as would be found to be absolutely intolerable. It was a serious danger identified with all legislation of this character, that they could not enforce it without a system of police despotism which was intolerable to any modern community. He heartily agreed with his hon. friend the Member for East Clare that the population of Ireland drank less per head than either their Scotch or English neighbours, but it was also perfectly true that they spent a great deal more than they could afford in drink. His objection to this special legislation for Ireland was that it tended to produce in the public mind of the civilised world the impression that Ireland required special treatment for the evils of drink. He denied that entirely; and he had to say that in the minds of men like himself, a great reaction had taken place in regard to this kind of legislation by the grossly exaggerated speeches and resolutions passed at temperance meetings. Any one able to read the English and Irish newspapers would imagine that Ireland was the most conspicuous of the three kingdoms for drunkenness. He believed that no grievance existed which entitled the House to put the principal shopkeepers in Ireland to the expense of re building or remodelling their premises in order to come into line with the rules under the Bill. He believed that this measure would lead to an increase in home drinking and shebeen drinking, for men would take home with them supplies of drink. Now, he insisted that if a man must get drunk, it would be better in every way for him to get drunk in a public-house and then be chucked out to make his way home, than to find himself in a shebeen, where he would drink all through the night, take a short sleep, and then get drunk again until the Sunday night came. That was what happened in Dublin. He knew the manager of perhaps the biggest printing establishment in Ireland, who confirmed all that had been said by the hon. Member for College Division in regard to Monday being the worst day of the week for the men to work. This manager, himself a total abstainer, was of opinion that shebeening in Dublin was the cause of it. He could assure his friends, from whom he differed on this question, that he was as earnestly desirous as they were themselves, to pass any well-considered legislation which would promote the cause of temperance, but he thought that the present law had not been properly enforced, and that it had failed for want of sufficiently stern and systematic administration. He trusted that whatever law was passed, it should be the same for Irishmen, Englishmen, and Scotchmen. On these grounds he opposed the Second Reading of the Bill.

said he could not stand up in that House to declare that he had enjoyed the pleasure of being an abstainer every other day. He had been a teetotaller for close on thirty years, but at the same time he was a believer in every man having his drink if he wanted it. There were some teetotallers who laid down the principle that every other human being should conform to their practice. That was a doctrine which had never succeeded, and would never succeed in keeping men away from the public house. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said that the Chief of Police in Dublin, Mr. O'Donnell, was altogether against Sunday closing, but in favour of closing at nine o'clock on Saturday night. He argued that it was immaterial whether they shut up the public-houses at nine o'clock, for if a man wanted drink he would get it at six o'clock as well as at nine o'clock. It was quite true that in five cities in Ireland the Sunday Closing Act was not in operation; but there were no statistics of the number of arrests made after the public-houses were closed on Saturday night. The only record of arrests was between eight o'clock on Sunday morning, and two o'clock in the afternoon, but he maintained that the great majority of these arrests were of men who had been drunk on the Saturday night. Where the average man was prevented from having his drink legitimately, he would get it in the sheebeen. Ireland was, as a matter of fact, one of the most drunken countries on the face of the earth, and that that was so could be seen from the arguments in favour of this Bill. He knew that the people of Ireland spent too much money in drink, and if he thought that the closing of the public-houses at nine o'clock on Saturday nights would he the moans of reducing the number of drunkards he would vote in favour of it, He had voted for prohibition in the State of Dakota, in America, where there was a prohibition law, but where there was more drunkenness than in any other State in America. In his humble judgment prohibition was a mistake from a purely temperance point of view, and they could not make the Irish people more sober than the) were by legislation. There was no better evidence that the best way to promote sobriety was personal influence than in the crusade of Father Matthew, who did more in a short space of time for the cause of temperance than all the legislation ever passed. The true methods were not coercive methods, but to go among the people and advise them individually what was good for them. He could speak from experience in his own county of Kerry, where they had some of the worst drunkards in Ireland. [Laughter.] Tf that was any amusement to hon. Members he should say that they in Kerry were not much

rose in his place and claimed to move that the Question be now put.