moved for a Return showing the alcoholic strength, degree by degree, of wines imported to this country during the year 1908 in cask from the various countries of Europe, Madeira, Australia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 94, of Session 1908).

Motion agreed to.

moved the second reading of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill. He said: The use of the word " prohibit," which is part of the title of the Bill which I have the honour to introduce to the House this afternoon, has become associated with what is usually believed to be the ideas of the most advanced temperance reformers, and scarcely gives a fair forecast of what this Bill proposes in the way of temperance reform. The latter part of the title, which refers to "regulation" will probably be found to be the most important function of the Bill. The title of the Bill might fairly be called "A Bill to regulate, or to prevent the improper sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday."

The object of the Bill is, briefly, to do something towards putting the sale of intoxicating liquor in England on a better and more satisfactory basis than at present. It may be asked why select drinking on Sunday as the subject most needing reform? I would reply—Public feeling, which, since 1854 (when a law was passed to close public-houses during Divine Service) has always shown itself favourable to the limitation of facilities for Sunday drinking, and Acts of Parliament, Reports of Royal Commissions in 1872, 1874, 1878, 1880, 1889, 1890, 1899, 1906, to say nothing of attempts and Bills which have not succeeded, all bear testimony to a desire to bring our laws into closer harmony with the increased respect which has existed for the decent and orderly regard for Sunday. Many of the proposals were not passed into law, not because they were not good in themselves, not because public opinion was not ripe, but because each Government treated Sunday closing as being simply part of the temperance question, and, as in last Session, each time those proposals were overthrown, for reasons which had little or no bearing upon Sun day closing.

In the cases of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, where the question was dealt with on its own merits, great progress has been made. Surely in view of the great changes of the habits of the people—the growth in sobriety and decent living—it is time this question was reconsidered in England. Whilst legislation should not go far in advance of public opinion, it ought at least to keep pace with it. Sunday closing is an important temperance reform, but it is more than that—it affects the better observance of Sunday to which more and more importance is being attached by the trading and working classes. Quite apart from the religious aspect of Sunday, important as that is, the last few years have witnessed a determined movement amongst shopkeepers, barbers, butchers, tobacconists, and many others for the better recognition of Sunday. The Sunday closing of public-houses has a vital bearing upon the observance of Sunday generally. Sunday means much to the workers, as well as to every other class, and everything should be done by the State to maintain a day of rest. Thus it is virtually a national movement, and not simply a temperance movement.

The publicans themselves, and their servants, who work exceptionally long hours on weekdays, under the most unhealthy circumstances, are many of them strong supporters of Sunday closing. This Bill would enormously diminish Sunday labour, and reduce the temptation to drink to excess, while making due provision for the convenience of those who still wish to provide themselves with liquor on Sundays.

The reception which the Sunday closing proposals of the Government met last year proves that it is not a mere party question, and that all parties are prepared to go forward in this matter. In a House of 289 Members, only 39 voted against the Sunday closing proposals of the last Licensing Bill. As an indication of the feeling of the House, I may remind hon. Members that the Government had to accept a suggestion strongly urged on both sides to bring the Metropolitan area under the Sunday closing provisions. At present there are two hours of opening at midday and four hours in the evening in the provinces, whilst London has two at midday and five in the evening. The proposal of the last Licensing Bill, for which Members voted, was more extreme than this, and was to reduce those hours one half, and it gave justices the power to close the houses on Sunday entirely in their own districts. From more than one quarter it was suggested that the proposed provisions would be improved by reversing the order—making Sunday closing the rule, and giving the justices the power to permit a license-holder, on good cause being shown, to open for not more than one hour in the middle of the day, and not more than three hours in London and two hours hi the provinces in the evening. It is that suggestion which is embodied in this Bill.

It is no new thing to entrust such power to the justices. The history of the Licensing Laws shows that for centuries up to about 1817 Parliament abstained from fixing the hours of opening and closing on weekdays and Sundays, and contented itself with leaving the power of action to the justices. This power was largely used, especially with regard to Sundays. Then came the disastrous experiment of Free Trade in beer in 1830, the results of which were so injurious that in 1839 Parliament took the matter up, and from time to time enforced great restrictions on Sunday liquor selling. These were carried further in 1872 and 1874, when the present hours of Sunday sale were fixed. In his 1904 Act the Leader of the Opposition gave back to justices their full powers with regard to new licences. That Act says:—

Another instance has occurred in Yorkshire. At Thornaby Licensing Sessions, on February 8th, the North-Eastern Breweries Company (Limited) were granted an off-beer licence to premises on Brewery Bank. An undertaking was given that there would be no sale after 7 p.m., no sale in open vessels, no Sunday trading, and no sale of any sort of less than half-a-dozen half-pints in sealed bottles. This Bill gives the justices the same power with regard to all houses that Mr. Balfour gave with regard to new licences only. It is evidently only fair and just that all licensed houses, new or old, should be placed under the same restrictions and have the same privileges. I have already given reasons why we should advance in this direction. There are others. The restrictions in England have proved most beneficial. No one would now think of proposing an extension of the hours of Sunday opening.

The Acts of Scotland, Ireland and Wales have been so beneficial and popular that no Member from those countries ever dreams of suggesting repeal, or even asks for modification. Royal Commissions and Select Committees have again and again reported in favour of retaining and strengthening those Acts. In the debates en Sunday closing last Session, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition testified most emphatically to their success. One notable incident may be specially named. When the late Lord-Advocate declared that "any endeavour to abolish Sunday closing" in Scotland, " and to revert to the old system would produce the nearest approach to a revolution on any social question we know of," the Leader of the Opposition, who knows Scotland well, exclaimed, "I agree." The Report of the Royal Commission respecting the licensed victuallers of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, says:—

The Bill is small, but it is a step in the right direction, and it may be summarised in a few lines. It closes public-houses on Sundays, but Licensing Justices may, for the public convenience, cause them to be open for one hour at noon, and for two hours in the country, or three hours in London during the evening, between 7 and 10. It defines the distance (at present three miles) which a person must travel before he may be considered a bonâ-fide traveller, and substitutes six miles for three. And the Licensing Justices may insist, where they think fit, to give a six-day licence in place of one for seven days. All Sunday workers everywhere, and all who take an interest in the religious life and welfare of the nation, are anxious that more consideration should be given to the claims of our Sunday. May we not, as our contribution towards the good work our friends are doing, give them this small, but to them, important and valuable assistance. In conclusion, I appeal to Members of this House to forget any irritation of feeling which may have arisen on account of the exciting debates on the Licensing Bill of last year, and to give their support to the proposals in this Bill which are directed towards the increase of temperance and public decency on Sunday—objects which I honestly believe every single Member of this House sincerely desires and is anxious to obtain. I beg to move.

I rise to second the Motion for the second reading, and I should like to define my position in this matter, because I know that I differ to some extent from my friends with whom I usually act in Parliament. Therefore I should like to explain the grounds on which I second the Motion. Last year, during the months which were spent on the Licensing Bill there was one occasion on which I was able to gladly support the Government, and that was when they dealt with this Sunday closing question, and, indeed, the limitation of hours generally. I have always taken the line that it was right to limit the hours for the opening of public-houses on Sundays. They are limited now, and, of course, it is common ground that nobody wishes to go back to those unfortunate days, a very long time ago, when public-houses were open all day and all night. Regarding this question historically, it is only fair to point out that the real obstacle to the passing of such a Bill as the present has been due to the demand of what is called the extreme Temperance party. That party have none of the limitations which the hon. Gentleman so fairly enumerated to-day, and upon which he bases his claim for support of the Bill which he has intro- duced. The extreme Temperance party say: "No; we will have everything or nothing. We will have total Sunday closing, or no Sunday closing at all." They obstructed the Bill brought in by a respected Member of this House—Sir Joseph Pease, in 1869—and that Bill did not pass. I am very glad indeed to recognise the change of tone which prevails to-day, and I must draw special attention to the fact which I am glad to note—and I hope he will not object to receiving a compliment from me—that the name of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Spen Valley, is on the back of the Bill. He, of course, if anybody, is an extreme temperance man. I think it is a very great fact indeed that in social progress one can find that people do recognise the course of events, and do perceive the obvious tendency of public opinion. And the right hon. Gentleman has recognised it by putting his name on the back of the Bill, and is ready to support us in trying to do what we can do instead of trying to do what we cannot do even if we should like to do it.

Though some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House are opposed to the Bill, they would not support the opening of public houses all day on Sunday. I am quite certain of that. Everyone in this House recognises the fact that licensed houses should not be open on the Sundays as they are open through the week. That is common ground. I do not know whether hen. Members have seen the interesting book by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, giving a history of liquor licensing in England. So far back as 1604—showing that we are acting upon very ancient lines in what we are doing—the justices in some counties provided for complete Sunday closing, except to travellers. Again, at the end of the 18th century, when there was a great revival of Sunday observance, there was a vigorous effort all over the country for early closing always, and Sunday closing, and " more or less Sunday closing became the rule everywhere out of London." That was more than 100 years ago the rule everywhere. The justices in those days had a great deal of power, and this matter was in the hands more of the justices than of this House. The justices at that time enforced complete Sunday closing, so that this Bill is doing nothing startling or novel, but the same sort of thing which has been done more or less perfectly or imperfectly for a great number of years. On the question of justices as contrasted with the action of Parliament, coming to modern times there was a feeling that it was impossible to deal with this matter by legislation, and that we ought to leave it to the general sense of the community. There was a time after this revival, as I call it, of Sunday closing at the end of the eighteenth century, when a reaction took place, and when there was almost universal licence—in the other sense of the word, not licence alone to sell intoxicating liquor—when liberty had degenerated into licence. Such was the terrible state of things, especially on Saturday nights, in London, because it preceded the weekly holiday, the condition of things was so eminently disgraceful and so totally repulsive to the good feelings of human nature that Parliament intervened, and in 1839 an Act of Parliament was passed which ordered all houses to be closed from midnight on Saturday to 1 o'clock on Sunday afternoon. The result of that was the instant cessation of a gross public scandal.

The streets of London, before the passing of that Act, in the early hours of Sunday morning were an absolute disgrace, not to our Christianity, that is too high a word, but to our civilisation. I mention this to show that it is worth while to see how far we can safely go. I quite agree we must go slowly, always endeavouring to conciliate and carry public opinion along with you. I ask whether we are going too far now in the proposals we make. You must deal differently with the case of London, and therefore I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the hours in London should be different from the opening of those houses in other parts of the country. I think in the moderate proposals of this Bill that the hours are apportioned as fairly as could be done for the needs of London, of the large cities, and of the general community of the country. When I was asked to support this Bill I said I would be glad to support it as I was in favour of the limitation of hours, but there is part of the machinery I do not agree with, and I would like to hold myself free if this Bill goes to a Committee, and if Amendments are proposed in that direction to deal with them in a manner which commends itself to my judgment.

I wish to give all credit to the hon. Gentleman for the arrangements he has made, but I notice he has shown a strange concern, almost archaic, in going back to a condition of things which I thought had long passed away. Instead of doing what Parliament has hitherto done in all their licensing legislation in Scotland, in Wales, and in Ireland, of laying down from a central authority what is to be the condition of things, they have gone back in this Bill to the old historical condition of affairs, which laid the obligation on the justices, and, strange to say, I cannot help feeling gratified from one point of view, because I have always said a good word for the unpaid magistracy of this country, to which I am proud to belong. But it is rather a strange thing that a Bill coming from that side of the House should confer upon the justices of this county the power of giving limitations to the law proposed to be enacted.

I hold the justices do their duty admirably, with complete public devotion, and with, I think, impartiality so far as any human beings can be impartial; but I cannot help asking this House whether it would not be the wiser way to proceed on our recent lines. If we have made up our minds certain hours are the proper hours to be laid down, we should, I think, say so, and not leave it to the justices. If not, observe what may happen. You may have a bench of justices in one part of the country who are strongly swayed by temperance views, and they may refuse any exemption. In another part of the country a bench of justices largely swayed, as we are sometimes told they are swayed by the trade interests, may grant every exemption the law allows. If the promoters of the Bill contend, as they probably will, that the second reading means that houses shall be closed during certain hours on Sunday, why do they not say so in the measure? It should be done by the authority of Parliament itself. It is an interesting historical fact— but not, I think, much more—that in the early history of the country on this subject everything that had to be done was done by the justices. I have not said anything about the grounds upon which I support this Bill, except that I thought there ought to be a limitation of hours. The enforcement of the weekly rest is a remarkable feature of the days in which we live. The enactment of a day of rest goes back to very ancient days, far beyond historical records, and I sometimes doubt whether the tens of thousands of toilers who enjoy the weekly rest remember where it came from originally, and where their weekly rest would now be if it were not for the original foundation of that great and divine institution. In these days of extreme liberty, when perhaps liberty has gone nearly as far as it can safely go, we have, not in this country only, but in other countries where liberty has degenerated almost into licence, a remarkable movement in favour not only of maintaining but of compelling a weekly day of rest. If that is so, those connected with this great industry or trade have as much right to a weekly rest as anybody else. People employed in licensed houses have a very large share indeed of daily toil, which is very little relieved on the weekly day of rest. Therefore I say that the toilers in the public-houses and refreshment-houses of the country, which are licensed under the authority of Parliament, have as much right to enjoy their weekly rest as anybody else. This is especially true in regard to the large number of women, and young women, employed in these houses. I am not going into the question whether barmaids ought to be employed; but there they are at present. Women have no direct voice in the election of Members to this House; therefore we are the more bound to regard their interests. Best should be the rule and work the exception on Sunday. We do not here enter into the religious argument, whether the day should be devoted to public worship or recreation. That would be beyond our function. What we do say is that everybody, so far as Parliament can arrange it, should have an opportunity for weekly rest, and we believe that that weekly rest tends to strengthen, maintain, and develop the best interests of the country. If I have carried the House with me in these remarks—and I must thank the House for the kind way in which they have received them—I hope the second reading will be carried without a division. I believe we are agreed on the principle, and that there is a clear demand for which we are bound to make provision. It may make it inconvenient for some of us to go without our refreshment for two or three hours on the Sunday, but we will gladly undergo that for the sake of the great number of people employed in these licensed houses. On the ground of the sanctity of the day of rest, on the ground of the decency and better order of the community which is promoted by the closing of these houses on the day of leisure, and especially on the ground of the right of every member of the community to a day of rest, I would ask the House to give a second reading to this Bill.

Motion made, and question proposed: " That the Bill be now read a second time."

By leave of the hon. Member who is to move the rejection of the Bill I intervene at this stage, not only on the ground of personal convenience, but because I am anxious at once to explain to the House the view the Government has taken in regard to this matter. The only question of principle raised by the second reading is whether or not a case has been made out for a substantial further limitation of hours during which public-houses shall be open on Sunday in this country. I need hardly say that the Government are strongly of opinion that that ease has been abundantly made out. I will not travel over the ground again. It was covered during the discussions on the recent Licensing Bill; but the case has been admirably presented, with great moderation, and at the same time with great force, by my right hon. Friend who has just spoken. The arguments which he brought forward in the concluding part of his speech are, I think, unanswerable. At any rate, up to this moment they have not been answered in the whole course of the discussions on the question, though no doubt the hon. Member opposite has an answer. But, if so, it has been discovered since last December. I take it for granted that, if the House is not absolutely unanimous on the point, there is a vast preponderance of opinion in favour of the proposition that a case has been made out for a limitation of the hours during which alcoholic liquor shall be sold by retail on Sunday. I agree further that the promoters of this Bill have been wise in not adopting a cast-iron rule of universal prohibition, and in allowing, as they have done in the machinery of their operative clause, a considerable latitude in the actual administration of the Act to deal with the exigencies of particular places. Here I must say that in my opinion, and in that of my colleagues, the machinery of the Licensing Bill of last Session as it passed through this House was a better machinery than that to be found in the Bill of my hon. Friend. What was that machinery? Shortly stated, the provisions of our Bill on this subject came to this: " Premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold by retail shall be closed during the whole of Sunday except for three hours between noon and 10 p.m., and in the metropolis between noon and 11 p.m."

There was a power given to the justices to attach as a condition of the renewal of an on-license, a larger limitation of the time, or even a total prohibition, if the circumstances of a particular house or a particular district seemed to them to require it. The House will also remember that there was a provision, though there was some difference of opinion about it, which, in some form or other, protected what are called restaurants and eating-houses, where the sale of drink is merely ancillary to the enjoyment of a meal during the long hours of Sunday. I am still of opinion, having given a good deal of thought to the matter, that that was better machinery for dealing with the question than the machinery proposed in the first clause of this Bill. I think we should endeavour, as far as we can, to carry public opinion with us in this matter. I think you will find that that machinery is more consonant with public opinion, and that the law would be more easily enforced and, therefore, more effective for the common purpose which we all have in view. Therefore, when the Bill comes into Committee, so far as I am concerned, I shall be in favour of making such amendments in it as, I shall not say bring it into exact harmony with the Bill of last year, but shall substantially alter the machinery in that direction. But, after all, that is a mere question of detail.

More than detail.

I do not agree with that. I think we are all fairly well content with the provisions, so far as this matter is concerned, if we can get them put on the Statute Book, and I think you would find them an enormous improvement in the licensing law of the land. These are matters which may properly be discussed on the Committee stage j but, so far as principle is concerned, I am heartily in favour of the Bill, and I trust the House will carry the second reading by an overwhelming majority.

In rising to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, I do not wish it to be understood that we on this side are not in favour of temperance. We differ from hon Members opposite in that our desire is to obtain temperance in its truest and most real form. It is not to be obtained, in my humble opinion, under this Bill. Before I allude to the Bill itself I should like to draw the attention of the House to the methods which have been adopted quite recently in regard to those who, like myself, are opposed to this Bill. I think that when the House knows of the circulars which are issued by the Central Sunday Closing Association, 9 and 10, Palace-chambers, Bridge-street, Westminster, on this particular case to the electors of the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire, which I have the honour to represent, they will agree with me. This is the form of the circular:—

"To the electors of the Kingswinford Division of Staffordshire:— Our Sunday Closing Bill is down for second reading—first order of the day—on Friday, March 12th. Kindly note: It proposes to give licensing magistrates power to open such houses as they think necessary during at least one hour at mid-day and another hour in the evening. The Bill has warm supporters amongst all parties. The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, M.P., has spoken in its favour. Lord Lansdowne has classed it amongst the non-contentious measures that might reasonably be included in the programme of legislative temperance reform. The Bill has a good place and is well backed by influential M.P.'s of all parties. And now at this auspicious stage our high hopes are met by an unexpected obstruction. Mr. H. Staveley-Hill, M.P., has booked an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. Our Association, supported by the clergy and leaders of all sections of the Church, by social reformers of all classes, implore you to interview, if possible, or write immediately to H. Staveley-Hill, Esq., M.P., Oxley Manor, Wolverhampton, asking him to reconsider his hostile attitude and withdraw his amendment. All Mr. Staveley-Hill's supporters are not allied with the trade in their determination to deprive England of a sober and quiet Sunday, and some of them are expressing warmly their disapproval of his proposed action on March 12th. Most fervently do we ask your prayers and your assistance to prevent this catastrophe. Will you also get others to write or draw up a memorial for signature of electors, and forward to Mr. Staveley-Hill without delay.'"

I think, Sir, that that is a most improper way of dealing with this matter. So far as it has influenced me it has acted rather as an incentive to oppose this Bill, as I originally intended to do. When I listened to the speech of the Mover of the Bill I was much struck by what he said. The Bill itself is a prohibition Bill. That is the principle that underlies it, and you cannot get away from it. The hon. Member told us that that was not exactly what was meant, but said it was a Bill to regulate the traffic in liquor on Sundays. Why do not they put in the forefront of the Bill prohibition, and it is only that except for one thing—a very curious thing in a democratic House of Commons and a democratic age—that the safeguard against it is in the magistrates, who are non-elected and non-representative. Are they the persons whom hon. Gentlemen opposite consider are the people who are to stand between prohibition and the present law. The Prime Minister says we need not go in for this particular machinery; but we are not dealing with the Licensing Bill now or the suggestions, which may be made in the Committee stage—we are dealing with the Bill as it stands. Prohibition only underlies it, and prohibition can only be prevented by the magistrates, which is almost certain to vary in the districts to which it is applied. The Member for Oxford University seconded the measure, and if his speech discloses all the support he can give to it, I am afraid the Mover of the Bill is not very fortunate in his Seconder, because on the question of the power of the magistrates the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the measure. The people of this country are not going to be dictated to by legislation as to their sobriety or the reverse. That is done by example. If I wanted a witness for that statement-I find him in the hon. Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwick, who I do not see in his place.

Oh, yes, I am here.

The hon. Member made a speech to which the House listened with great attention in November last upon the Licensing Bill, and he said that, in fact, no legislation would stop people having their glass of beer, and he gave us some interesting reminiscences-which went to prove his assertion. Therefore, I venture to think, with regard to a measure of this sort, that you are not going to alter the habits of the people, but what you are going to do is to put restrictions on the opening of public-houses which will lead to the evasion of the law and the encouragement of drinking in the most undesirable form of all.

Is not this Bill a departure from that set before us in the autumn of last year? The Sabbatarian argument has been brought forward, and that is an argument to which most of us are accustomed. I do not think that the Sabbatarian argument can be said in this case to entirely apply.

Is not this Bill an attack upon a trade? If it is then I can quite understand it; but that is not put forward in the Bill. The argument used in supporting it is that Sunday is a day of rest. With that I entirely agree. If it is not an attack on the trade and the sale of alcoholic drinks where does it promote Sunday as a day of rest. Of course, the Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General, in the course of the debate on the Licensing Bill last autumn, said that any inconvenience that is caused would not arise in the case of those persons who frequented public-houses for non-alcoholic and victualling refreshments. Accepting that view for the moment, how is Sunday to be made a day of rest if persons are to be employed in opening ginger-beer and lemonade bottles? The Sabbatarian argument must fall to the ground if you are going to allow persons to do any work at all on Sunday. The working man is surely entitled to have his glass of beer on Sunday as much as the man with the cellar. Why should he be deprived of it because he does not keep a cellar? It is not in the interests of economy or in the interests of temperance that persons should be encouraged to drink in their own homes instead of places set apart for the purpose and governed by law. A person takes home beer on a Saturday night. It cannot keep in the house, and it would not be good enough to be drunk on the Sunday. Why should he be deprived of what other people have the right of doing? In favour of the Sabbatarian argument, hon. Members say that it is a great sin and shame that persons should be employed at all on Sunday. If that is so, it applies to all classes and all people. Do the hon. Members notice on Sunday mornings the milk carts in the streets? Should they be allowed? If hon. Members on principle do not read their papers on Sunday they would read them on Monday, but a great deal of the newspaper work has been done on the Sunday.

Another argument used in the course of this debate is that the principle of the Bill has been successful elsewhere. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill said that the present hours in the Metropolitan district were 1 to 3 on Sunday afternoon and 6 to 11 on Sunday evening. Elsewhere the hours are from 12.30 to 2.30 in the afternoon and 6 to 10 in the evening. It is unfair and also unnecessary to further limit those hours. To do so will lead to the evasion of the law. As to it being successful elsewhere, let me come to concrete cases in the United Kingdom. Sunday closing commenced in Scotland in 1854; in Ireland (Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford excluded) in 1878; and in Wales in 1881. These are the convictions of drunkenness per 1,000 on Sunday in 1885: England, .50; Wales, .55; Scotland, .58; and Ireland, 1.10. In 1886 to 1890 the convictions in England were .49 and in Wales .72, while in 1886 to 1887 the convictions in Scotland were .58. As regards Ireland, the figures refer to arrests, and are no guide, and there are no later figures of convictions than these since 1885. In England and Wales convictions are 90 per cent, of arrests. As regards drunkenness on Sunday, has Sunday closing been successful in Scotland and Wales? That is the point with which we have to deal. It has not, according to the figures, been successful. That shows that England continues to improve, while other parts of the United Kingdom, if they have not gone back, are still steady. There are no later figures. The figures of the charges for Sundays and weekdays combined in 1906 are: England, 6.0; Wales, 6.5; Scotland, 11.7; and if the Sunday and weekday offences are in the same ratio of the total the 1906 estimate of drunkenness is: England, 0.44; Wales, 0.55; Scotland, 1.11.

Are these arrests or convictions?

These are convictions.

Do these include the Saturday night cases? There are two sets of figures, and the distinction is very important. If you take the arrests and convictions from 8 a.m. on Sunday morning to 8 a.m. on Monday morning, and from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday you get the Saturday night convictions, and the Sunday convictions—

These figures refer to the Sunday figures. The 1885 figures are the only figures exclusively Sunday. The figures I quoted with reference to 1906 are figures for the whole of the country, inclusive of Saturday.

Were the Sunday figures from midnight Saturday to midnight Sunday?

As I understand it, they were Sunday, and the figures are less in England, where there is no Sunday closing. The figures I have already quoted show that the result is not a very desirable state of things. I have one other instance I wish to quote. In Wales, where Sunday closing exists, the neighbouring county of Monmouthshire, which was often referred to in the course of the debates on the Licensing Bill last year, has the same licensing law as prevails throughout England. On the quinquennial returns a comparison of Monmouthshire with Glamorgan and Brecon brings Monmouthshire out very considerably in advance of the Welsh counties. A similar comparison of the Welsh counties with Herefordshire gives the same result. If you make it necessary for the people to take their drink home, it may prove a very serious thing. Beer will not keep, and it would not remain as fresh as it would be in the places suitable for it. That does not apply to Scotland and Ireland, where whisky is more frequently drunk.

The whole argument in favour of this Bill is drawn from what is supposed to be the result in Scotland and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley wrote in January, 1907, to "The National Review," and said that, broadly speaking, that though these improved conditions are in existence in Scotland, intemperance and all the evils of drunkenness still abound. If that is so, what is the use of the introduction of this kind of legislation into this country, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, has not done any good where it is in existence? According to the right hon. Baronet, "all the evils of drunkenness still abounds in Scotland." Then what is the argument for introducing it here? There are some further instances to be got as regards Scotland from the Judicial Statistics for 1907. They show a gradual rise. I have looked through these statistics, and I can assure the House that on taking the figures I am taking no unfair year. There is a gradual rise in all years during the last 10 years, except one. In 1897 there were 24,897 convictions for drunkenness; in 1907 there were 42,248—that is to say, an increase of 69 per cent. Of course, there has been a large increase in the population, and that must be taken into account. But if you take these figures per 10,000 of the population the proportion is, for 1897, .58 and for 1907 .80. Are these hopeful facts in favour of prohibition? Do they afford the slightest argument in favour of the Bill? Reference was made constantly during the debates on the Licensing Bill last year, and probably will be again to - day, as to the effect of similar provisions and measures in the United States. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one personal instance of the effects of prohibition. A great many years ago, when I first went out to the North-West Territory, there was total prohibition. You were not allowed to have any liquor in any shape or form, and if you happened to have a flask it was taken from you by the mounted police and emptied on the prairie. That, as we know, was for the purpose of safeguarding the Indians more than anything else I can say, speaking from my own knowledge, that the effect of the prohibition was that people managed somehow or another to smuggle in drink from the United States, and there was as much drunkenness, considering the amount of the population, as you could have found if there was no prohibition, and what was worse was that the drink was very much adulterated, and was of the very worst possible kind. I remember once being invited to take part in one of these convivial gatherings down underground, hidden away behind some timbers. I did not take part, but I know that the liquor provided was made up of some refuse of kerosene mixed with pain killer and tea. That was the effect of prohibition. It leads to the foundation of bogus clubs. These are the things to which the House ought to-devote its attention. I notice this Bill in its first sub-section includes all places where intoxicating liquors are sold. I do not stand up here in any sense to oppose this Bill on behalf of the licensed trade, but is it necessary in the interest of temperance to carry such a measure when since 1900 the output of beer has fallen by more than 3½ million barrels?

If the right hon. Baronet will allow me to quote him once more upon this question, writing to "The Times" on February 27th, 1908, he says, the public-houses of England have sold fifteen millions less of liquor on the average during the last three years than they did in the corresponding years seven years ago. If that is so, the diminution in sale is shown by figures as well as by the statement of the right hon. Baronet, and has not England become much more temperate than it was by natural processes of itself and not necessitating in any way further legislation of any unjust and unfair character.

How are you going to leave it, to the wishes of the people? You have had opportunities. In Bermondsey and in Hull polls have been taken on this question of the closing of public-houses. In Bermondsey, according to my figures, 10,000 people did not vote at all, and in Hull 30,000 people did not vote, and the "Temperance Chronicle" said that it was an unsatisfactory means of obtaining views. It is an unsatisfactory means of obtaining views; if a large portion of the population do not vote at all you have not really learned what is the view of the people. [" Oh!"] Would hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite be satisfied with a Parliamentary election if the great majority of their supporters did not come to the poll? It is said that this Bill would be welcomed by the licensed victuallers. No, sir, the licensed victuallers would not welcome any Bill of this sort, under which they would have to keep open for one hour of the day instead of three. It is not their desire, and they have never desired it, and they have said, by resolution in 1906, that they were adverse to Sunday closing on similar lines to those proposed in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, in seconding the Bill, said he objected to a part of the machinery. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the machinery to which he objected is absolutely objectionable, because if the House desires a Bill of this sort, a Bill which is to apply prohibition and enforce Sunday closing, then make it universal, make it your law. Do not leave it to the option of magistrates, whose opinions will vary in different districts, so that you will have people rushing out of a prohibited area into a non-prohibited area, so that the remedy will be worse than the disease. Of course, moreover, the magistrates have the power under this Bill, and they may limit it to an off-sale only.

I say—and I say what I mean—that in the rural districts, at all events, the public-house is, for the hours it is open, the club and the resort of the working man for absolutely legitimate purposes, and I do not think you will be doing anything for his benefit or his gain by closing them in rural districts or anywhere else. Under this Bill inns and hotels may be closed for the whole of the day except to the bonâ fide traveller. Under the provisions of this Bill, moreover, the magistrates may increase the distance of travel from three miles to six, or, according to the Bill, there is nothing to prevent them from increasing it from three miles to 600, because "any further distance" are the words, and the magistrates have absolute discretion. That, again, is what I call class legislation. It is all very well for the man who has a motor-car, or a bicycle, or a donkey, or anything that can travel this distance, but it is hard on the pedestrian who goes out for a walk, and would like to have refreshment in a public-house properly, soberly, and in a perfectly legitimate way. I have nothing to add to the arguments which I have put before the House. I am very grateful for the kindly hearing which they have given me. I only hope, that they will consider this Bill, in the interests of all classes, not only in the interests of those who call themselves temperance reformers, but in the interests of justice to the people of this country, and if they do so they will see that they are not able to vote for the second reading, and even if they do. I am sure they will see on the Committee stage many alterations which will make it somewhat more acceptable than it is now. I beg to move.

, in seconding the Amendment, said: The most remarkable feature of this debate is that the three hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of the Bill, are not, apparently, satisfied with it as it is drawn. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill declared at the outset that it was not prohibition that he advocated, it was the regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and yet the Bill which he introduced starts off in sub-section 1 with absolute and complete prohibition, modified only by the possible action or inaction of the justices of the peace who have a majority and who may happen to have strong feelings towards temperance or the reverse, and who may leave the Bill entirely inoperative or use it for purposes of prohibition. It is in the power, therefore, of the justices to leave the matter entirely alone or make use of it for prohibition. Then the hon. Member who seconded this Bill from this side declared that it was not this Bill of which he approved, it was the principle of Sunday closing, but not this Bill at all, and he raised the very obvious objection I have referred to with regard to the powers of the licensing justices to frustrate the objects which he had in view. Then, thirdly, the Prime Minister commenced by saying that the Government were in favour of the principle of the Bill, and then he went on to say that it was not this Bill that he desired to support, and he preferred a memorial of his defunct child of last year, so that what we are discussing seems to be a very abstract question of Sunday closing, but apparently nobody is satisfied with the Bill before the House.

I second this Motion to reject the Bill, firstly because I cannot approve of an interference of this kind with public freedom unless justification is shown for it, either by a bad state of affairs existing at the time or by the success of similar or like systems in the past and in other places, and I do not think any case has been made out either for the necessity for the Bill or for the success of experiments in the past. To begin with, we must bear in mind that the well-to-do classes will not be in any way affected by this Bill; it is one which will affect only the poorer classes, who cannot get the drink that they require in their own homes as people better off are able to do. As regards the necessity for the Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that the people of this country have been for a long time and are steadily improving in the matter of sobriety, and I think that instead of showing patience with the state of things and being satisfied with that large improvement it seems irrational to treat grown-up men as if they were babies and force them to hurry up with their sobriety and temperance. What will be the inevitable result of Sunday closing if, as I believe in many cases, it will result in prohibition? First of all, it must inevitably encourage a number of clubs, and I do not think the weekly-day-of-rest argument advanced by my right hon. Friend below me will quite fall in with that point. It is quite evident that these clubs will occupy people on a Sunday in exactly the same way as the public-houses would have occupied them, and as far as Sabbatarianism goes, it seems, from all we know of clubs of this kind, that, owing to the variety entertainments which frequently take place in them, and the fact that they are open at all hours, you certainly have not gained much from that point of view by substituting for the public-house, which is open to police supervision, the club, which is not.

The second objection is that you will inevitably replace the consumption of beer to a great extent by the consumption of spirits for the simple reason that beer will not keep, and that it is not easily carried while a flask of whisky can easily be carried in the pocket. The immediate result of the Scotch Act of 1904 was a large increase in the consumption of whisky and a decrease in the consumption of beer. It is justifiable to assume that that was due very much to the cause I have indicated, and any legislation which increases the consumption of spirits will be contrary to the health and morals generally of the people at large.

So far as a case has been made out for the success of this sort of legislation in the past, it has been stated that Sunday closing, where it has been tried, has been distinctly beneficial, and the hon. Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill said in Scotland the success was due entirely to Sunday closing and he proved that by the reduction in the consumption of liquor which had taken place in Scotland. As a matter of fact Sunday closing came into force in Scotland in 1854 and there was a reduction in the consumption of liquor about that time; but it is necessary before drawing the deduction too quickly that that was due to Sunday closing to point out that the duty on whisky was increased from 3s. 8d. a gallon in 1852 up to 10s. a gallon in 1860, and that a reduction, which was very much in proportion to the increase in the duty, took place between 1852 and 1854, before Sunday closing came in; and then again, when the duty was increased to the maximum in 1860, there was a further falling off in that year by 1,000,000 gallons, and that in six years after Sunday closing had been in operation. So that it is somewhat dangerous to assume that the effect of Sunday closing had any immediate beneficial result. Some years ago the experiment appears to have been tried at Glasgow of closing the public-houses on a general holiday—24th April—and apparently the result was to create a great exodus from Glasgow to the surrounding country, and a state of things arose which became a scandal, so that the object of preventing people drinking by closing on that holiday was frustrated. As a matter of fact, the convictions for drunkenness enormously increased in Scotland in 1904, when further restrictive measures were adopted, and in 1907 the convictions were 46 per cent. higher than in England and Wales. Then we have the case of Wales, where Sunday closing has been practised since 1881, and where there has been an enormous increase in the amount of illegal selling of intoxicating liquors since that year. The prosecutions for illegal selling in Wales in 1881 appear to have been 237, and these steadily increased up to 1898, when they became 679. It is true since then they have very largely decreased again, and in 1905 they were only 112. But this again is remarkable, that these 112 prosecutions in Wales were out of a total of only 261 for the whole of England, whose population is more than twenty times the population of Wales. There is no doubt that the Bill, as it stands, is, and must be, in a great many districts a prohibition Bill, and prohibition, wherever it has been tried, has invariably had a result, firstly on the direct question of temperance and secondly by forcing the people to break the law in order to get the liquor which they will have, of inducing them to continue to carry their illegal practices into other matters. There was an interesting Consular Report sent from the United States signed by a relative of my own in 1907, in which it is stated, as a proof that prohibition has not been a success in the United States, that at one time or another seventeen States have had prohibition, and now it is only retained by three, and in these it cannot be looked upon as a success. The three States which still retain prohibition are almost entirely agricultural communities, which, of course, are hardly those at which this Bill is principally aimed, because the agricultural communities in this country are to a very great extent the most sober. But the most important part of this Report is that which says:— more and more to throw drinking into premises which are not under the control of the police; and a Bill of this kind, which is a partial-restriction measure, must be looked upon as giving itself to very much the same argument that applies to a more complete measure of restriction. If you think that legislation is really necessary— which I doubt—to hurry on the movement towards sobriety, which already is very considerable, the best method of getting the people in the country to become really temperate is to improve the surroundings in which people are forced to obtain what they want. If what public-houses there are were made more decent and respectable, and if the public-houses, instead of being closed on Sunday, were such that the man, when out for a walk with his wife and family, could without hesitation take them in and allow them to get their cup of tea while he had his beer or whatever he required, a great deal more would be done in the direction of temperance than by forcing what I may call rather extreme views on that subject upon the whole population of the country.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—

There are two facts which distinguish this debate which I think are of very hopeful urgency in relation to the success of this Bill. The first is that this Bill is largely non-political, and, speaking for myself, I have long been convinced that the only way to make really permanent progress with the temperance question is, as far as possible, to insist upon its being regarded as non-political. If we are to advance at all, we must advance with public opinion behind us rather than by making temperance a partisan and political issue. The second fact which distinguishes this Bill in regard to Sunday closing in England is that we have practical experience of other countries where this principle has been in force for many years to guide us in coming to a conclusion as to whether the principle of the Bill, if applied to England, is likely to be beneficial. I would submit certain considerations which prove beyond doubt that Sunday closing in the portion of the country with which I am best acquainted—Wales—has been a decided success. The Royal Commission on Welsh Sunday Closing in 1889 unanimously declared in favour of continuing the Act in Wales and expressed the opinion that it had been a decisive benefit to the people of Wales. That Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government; the chairman was Lord Balfour of Burleigh; it held an exhaustive inquiry into the operation of the Act in Wales at that time, and no one will deny that great weight must be attached to its findings. Then we had the Licensing Commission over which Lord Peel presided, which expressed the opinion unanimously—both in the majority and in the minority reports—that Sunday closing in Wales had been a success. This brings us from 1881, when the Act was passed, up to 1900. As I had the honour of being on that Commission and listening to the evidence given from Wales, the declaration made on that occasion was of special interest to myself. It is admitted generally that in rural districts the principle of Sunday closing has been an undoubted success, but it is sometimes said that in densely populated centres and large towns its success has not been so great. May I take the case of the city of Cardiff as an illustration of what has happened in Wales in reference to the effects of Sunday closing. Hon. Members will remember that it was the state of things alleged to exist in Cardiff consequent upon the passing of the Sunday Closing Act which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission of 1889. I will give the House the facts in regard to Cardiff. What were the Sunday convictions in Cardiff for the year 1881? At that time the population of Cardiff was 80,000, and in that year the Sunday convictions were 62. Twenty-six years after Sunday closing has been in operation, when the population has increased from 80,000 to 187,000, the total number of Sunday convictions for the year 1907 amounted to eight. That is a clear fact, showing that with effective administration to test the character and benefit of the Act of Parliament even in Cardiff, which was the centre of the greatest difficulty in regard to the administration of the Act in Wales, the success of the Sunday Closing Act has been very remarkable. It may be said that the declaration of the Royal Commission of 1898 refers to a state of things ten years ago. In order to show what the present view of those best able to judge of the condition of affairs in Wales is I would like to refer to one or two short declarations made last year upon the effects of the Sunday Closing Act in Wales. The first witness I will bring forward is the Rev. W. Talbot Rice, the vicar of Swansea. Last year he said:—,

Last year a memorial was presented to the Prime Minister upon this subject of a most representative character. Besides this, we have the fact that all the Parliamentary representatives of Wales are strongly in favour of the continuance and the strengthening of the Act. It is sometimes said that you cannot rely on the views expressed by Parliamentary representatives, but I say unhesitatingly that with regard to a question of this kind, when, as we all know, there are so many influences brought to bear to affect the decision of Members of Parliament, the fact that all the representatives of Welsh constituencies are in favour of Sunday closing and strongly support this Bill is a fact of considerable importance to this debate.

I should like to refer to one charge which has been made by the Seconder of the rejection of this Bill. He said that one of the effects of Sunday closing would be to increase bogus drinking clubs. I will state one or two facts as to Sunday closing in Wales in reference to the establishment of clubs. There were in England last year 6,675 clubs, and in Wales 231. So far as England is concerned, that total gives 21 clubs for every 100,000 of the population, whilst the total for Wales gives in the Sunday closing area 13 for every 100,000. In other words, there are fewer clubs in Wales within the Sunday closing area in proportion to the population than exist in England. Under Sunday closing the population of Cardiff is over 170,000, and there are 30 clubs registered in the city. Coming to England, if you take Halifax, with a population of 104,000, you find 49 clubs there; in Bolton, with 168,000 inhabitants, there are 45; and in Oldham, with a population of 137,000, there are 80 clubs. It id a fact that there are more registered clubs in the large centres of population in England where Sunday closing does not prevail than in Wales, where Sunday closing is the law of the country.

I do not wish to minimise certain undoubted difficulties in connection with the administration of the present Sunday Closing Act in Wales. What I do say is those difficulties are not caused by clubs. The increase in the number of drinking clubs in Wales can, and ought to be, met by effective club legislation. If you go to Scotland you find conditions in regard to the massing of population and other social conditions the exact counterpart to the conditions now prevailing in the Rhondda Valley, where these difficulties in Wales largely exist, and where I think they can be adequately met by reasonable and effective Sunday legislation. If we had the same legislation in regard to clubs in Wales as Scotland these difficulties would be largely minimised, and in time would pass away.

In conclusion, I have to express my growing confidence in the principle of Sunday closing, not only upon the grounds of the necessity of a day of rest for all workers, but on the ground that it is an effective step forward along the road of temperance reform. It is not for me to enlarge too much upon the Sabbatarian side of the question, but perhaps I may be permitted to say that everyone will recognise that behind the institution of the Sunday there is a great weight of tradition and many forces and influences making for the higher life of the nation as a whole, and anything which can be done, by legislation or otherwise, to render these influences which surround the institution of the Sabbath day more effective must be for the general good of the community. Ideas and conditions change—ideas have changed as to what Sunday recreation should be. All I would like to say is that, taking a wide view of this question, remembering what is going on in other countries—New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada, all new countries —where the desire for and the pursuit of pleasure is as largely developed as it is here; if it is true that in these countries they regard it necessary to have Sunday closing entrenched in their national life, I think we can in this country go safely forward. Upon these and many other grounds I very heartily support the second reading of the Bill. I feel certain, if it passes, as I hope it will, that it will be an undoubted moral boon to the well-being of England.

I am sure that everybody, whatever their opinions may be on this subject, will welcome the tone of the speech that has just been delivered by the hon. Baronet. I quite agree with him that it would be a splendid thing if this temperance question could be approached in a non-political spirit. As regards this particular Bill, to-day we have not heard much of those old controversial shibboleths which too often have been used in discussions of this description. I am quite in accord with the general intention of this Bill. But I think it would really be better if we could call it by the name of Sunday Regularisation rather than that of Sunday Closing. I cannot help feeling, without tracing the whole ground of the Royal Commission, and of the discussions arising from it—that that Commission, as well as the Bill last year, has brought us to a position from which two or three points of common assent may be taken. Take the Bill of last year—that portion relating to Sunday regulation. What happened? We found that the leaders on the Front Opposition Bench—the Leader of the Opposition delivered, if I may with all respect say so, one of the most delightful speeches that I ever listened to in this House, upon this very question of Sunday closing. We found also that another leader, the Member for one of the divisions of Worcestershire—I do not remember which; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—that he voted in the Lobby for Sunday closing. We also found that not a single Front Bench man of Government rank on the Opposition side voted or spoke one word against it.

If that is the case, have we not the right, to borrow the words of the hon. Baronet, to say that, as regards this particular aspect of the temperance question, there is a considerable absence of politics? I wish for one moment to dwell upon one feature. I am absolutely opposed to Imperial closing. I do not think that it is desirable in any shape or form. I prefer the proposals in the Bill of last year to those of the Bill before the House to-day. The difference between the two is this: The Bill of last year proposes to regulate, to put within certain limits, the hours upon which licensed houses should be opened—it gave certain powers to the magistrates or the licensing authority in the locality to go beyond that according to what they deemed to be local characteristics. What does the Bill to-day do? It turns the proposals in another way. It seeks to make the hours of closing—shall I say universal?—and it gives the magistrates the power to make certain exemptions. Some people may say that there is very little difference between the two. I think there is a very great deal of difference. Why? If this House passes this somebody may subsequently bring forward a proposition to take away from the exemptions which this Bill offers to give to the magistrates to use if they think proper. If, therefore, the Bill goes forward to-day—as no doubt it will—I want to make it clear that at the proper time I shall propose an amendment to bring it into the shape of the Government Bill of last year as regards Sunday regulation.

Let me go a little beyond that. I said that upon this question of Sunday regularisation there is a considerable amount of agreement. I think, too, that from last year we have got to a point upon which there is a good deal of common assent. We have heard remarks to-day about clubs. The speakers from the Conservative benches have rather suggested that if you do this thing you may be confronted by clubs cropping up. I agree with the hon. Baronet. I think that the time has come when this House should absolutely, and finally—and boldly—seek by legislation to control these clubs as they ought to be controlled. I pass to another aspect—the difficulty in everything referring to temperance proposals. That is—here or elsewhere—that some people are always aiming at prohibition. The worst part of it is that they seem to suspect those who do not take that stand. Let me give an illustration arising out of this Bill. I have had numerous communications upon the subject. I take no exception to that except that they began to arrive directly the hon. Member who has proposed the Bill had drawn the ballot; and therefore the House will understand that the people who were saying that they desired I should support—or oppose, as the case may be— could not know the contents of the Bill. It is out of place that temperance organisations and trade societies should send to Members of Parliament to support, or oppose, a particular proposition when they do not know what it is.

The statistics that have been quoted here to-day about drunkenness and the number of clubs are not of very great value. I think our observations perhaps bring us to this conclusion: that there is less drunkenness about. You see less in the towns, seaside resorts, or trippers' places, than some years ago.

There are some interesting figures contained in an answer to a question on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Clitheroe with reference to persons proceeded against in England and Wales for drunkenness in 1907 and 1908, and also the number of licence-holders proceeded' against for permitting drunkenness. In regard to licence-holders, the figures show that in 1908 the number of convictions against them for permitting drunkenness was reduced to 642. We all know that many of these cases were only in respect of technical offences. But that is not all. If we take the Return published last week, we find that the number of brewers during the year was reduced by about 200, and we also find that the number of barrels of beer on which duty was paid was on the downward grade. All these things, together with the number of houses suppressed last year—I think about 1,200—are advantageous, if only our temperance friends will not try to hurry along, but will simply ask for the adoption of those principles which were included in the Licensing Bill last year. If they had adopted the proposals of that measure I should have voted with them to-day, as I voted for the regulations in the Bill of last year, without hesitation. I hope the hon. Member responsible for the Bill will be able to accept the suggestion I am now making as to the regulations contained in the Bill of last year. I think we should remember, when we hear arguments adduced on this question, that unfortunately the trade does not always have the details of these measures explained. It is too often said that these matters are political, and that temperance reformers entertain revengeful and antagonistic feelings to the trade. If the trade were told the details of many of these measures they would not be so frightened about them. The name Sunday closing implies the closing of houses, but if it were explained to members of the trade that the only suggestion was to regularise, within the powers of the local magistrates, who ought to know best what happens in a locality, you would not have so many of them against such a proposal as that now before the House. Though I cannot support the Bill in its present shape, I am heartily in favour of the general principle which I understand to underlie it.

I am quite at a loss to understand from the hon. Member's speech the course which he proposes to take in regard to the second reading of this Bill.

I intend to do what the Leader of the Opposition did upon the Bill last year—to speak in favour of the principle and then to do as he did— abstain from voting at all until I get it in the form I desire.

I do not remember the action of the Leader of the Opposition, but I am very glad to hear that his principles and his personality have made such an impression upon Gentlemen on the other side that for the future, at any rate, one of them intends to follow his lead in this particular direction, though I hope he will take his courage in his hands and follow the right hon. Gentleman in other directions.

Whether right or wrong?

The hon. Member below the Gangway can hardly expect me to answer that question, except that in my opinion the Leader of the Opposition is always right. In listening to the speeches made this afternoon I have come to the conclusion that the hon. Member the Mover of the Bill and the hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire are the only two who are wholly in favour of the Bill. I think their arguments were rather on the sabbath than on the temperance side of the Bill. ["No."] The hon. Baronet shakes his head, and I accept his denial without any further statement about it. He said that the Royal Commission of 1889 had expressed the opinion that Sunday closing had been a success in Wales. But 1889 is twenty years ago, and during that period there has been a great increase of sobriety, I hope in Wales, but certainly in England, where Sunday closing does not obtain. After all, it was an expression of opinion; but facts are stronger than opinion, and what we want to know is whether Wales is more sober with Sunday closing than England without Sunday closing. The right hon. Baronet told us that in 1881 in Cardiff there were 62 convictions for drunkenness on Sunday, whereas in 1906 there were only eight convictions, but I do not know that the argument of the hon. Baronet tended in any way to show that Sunday closing had anything to do with it. Let me quote a statement which does not go back to 1881, but which goes as far back as 1895. In that year the Stipendiary Magistrate for Cardiff said:—

"It is not my province to seek the cause for or to trace the origin of the illicit drinking establishments of Cardiff. If the cause be a harsh or too arbitrary a limitation of the time during which liquor may be obtained legitimately on licensed premises the Legislature may so relax the law as to remove the temptation to resort to unlicensed premises. If the difficulties in suppressing the illicit traffic in liquor at Cardiff are due to the defects in the law which can be remedied without interference with the convenience, comfort, or liberty of the people, it is to be hoped that in the interests of good order and for the removal of a public scandal a remedy may be found and applied. It is not for me to propose a remedy, but to state what is proved by daily proceedings in this court, namely, that on the day when licensed houses are closed there is a demand by a large section of the community for intoxicating liquor and that that demand is supplied at clubs and shebeens."

Can you say who was the stipendiary?

No, I cannot give the name, but I do not think it makes any difference whether the stipendiary's name is Smith or Jones. He was the stipendiary magistrate of Cardiff.

And is still.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give the name.

T. W. Lewis is the name.

I think those words ought to receive from the House very great consideration before they take any steps in England, where, as I intend to show, drunkenness is not so rife as in Wales, and which may produce a particular object which this gentleman, Mr. Lewis, says is produced by Sunday closing in Wales. The hon. Member who spoke last said that he was in favour of making strict regulations with regard to clubs; but this Bill has nothing whatever to do with clubs, and therefore his speech, if it had any weight at all in that direction, tended to militate against the second reading of this Bill instead of in its favour.

The right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who seconded the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, made, I thought, an extremely interesting speech, as he always does, but I must say that I thought that part of his speech which dealt with the main provisions of the Bill one of the strongest condemnations of the Bill that I have heard to-day in this House. He pointed out with great force that the provisions of the Bill empowered licensing justices to do certain things, and that the result would be that in parts of the country all the houses would be closed, whereas in other parts of the country all the houses would be open. He pointed out a teetotal bench might take a very strong view in regard to total closing, whereas a bench with opposite views with regard to teetotalism might take a contrary view. He pointed out that would be a harsh result, and one which could not be commended.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knows of a teetotal bench in the country?

I was not stating my opinion, but what was said by the right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion for second reading. I do not know whether there is such a bench or not. I was merely pointing out what seemed to be the very extraordinary argument produced by the right hon. Gentleman. Later on we came to the real reason why he supported the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it is going to give certain rest to people who deserve a rest on Sunday. An hon. Gentleman opposite nods his head. No doubt a great number of people do support the second reading of this Bill because they wish to have a Sabbath day. [An Hon. Membee: "Rest day."] I would point out to them that the appropriate course for them is not to bring in a seventh day rest Bill under the guise of a temperance Bill, but to attack the subject boldly and say, "We wish to pass a law which will have the effect of saying that on the seventh day no one is to do any work." I should not agree with it, but that would be a legitimate object. I say this Bill endeavours to legislate for one particular class of people, and to force them into doing what nobody else is bound to do, and this is done not in the interests of temperance, but as a step in the direction of having a Sabbath-day law.

My right hon. Friend wound up his speech by appealing to the House to pass the second reading, and he said cannot we go without refreshment for a few hours on Sunday in order to bring about all those advantages which this Bill is going to cause? It will not affect him in the least. It will affect few Members of this House. They do not want to go to a public-house; they have got their cellar in their own house. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Not all."] I did not say all; I said a good number. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for the University has; therefore as to his great appeal to the House to exercise a little self-denial it certainly would not make my right hon. Friend do so. Neither would it make a great number of the hon. Members who sit opposite, and I certainly think not one of the four gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench at the present moment. Not a single one of those four gentlemen would be inconvenienced in the slightest degree by the passing of this Bill. I venture to go further still. If we, any of us, had the good fortune to be asked to luncheon with any of those four gentlemen, we should find intoxicating liquors on their table. I quite sympathise with them, and think they are quite right; but then I say do not talk about self-denial. There is no self-denial in this question as regards the vast majority of the Members of this House.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill is not present in the House, because I was going to ask him what was the meaning of certain sections of the Bill. I am confronted with two eminent Scottish lawyers, but I do not know whether their knowledge of the law is sufficient to enable them to give me a response. I would like to know this, as to Clause 1, which is as follows:—

The right hon. Gentleman will probably talk to me about the bonâ-fide traveller. A man living a mile from a station would not be a bonâ-fide traveller until he had gone some distance in the train. Supposing the Daylight Saving Bill were in force, and he, through miscalculating the time, missed the train, he would be unable to get a glass of something to keep himself warm if it happened to be a cold day, because he would not be a bonâ-fide traveller. The same difficulty would arise in the case of hotels. We had considerable discussion on this point when the Government Bill was before us last autumn, and it was pointed out that great hardship would be inflicted on people in London if they were prevented from going into hotels to get luncheon or dinner during certain hours on Sunday. As a result, extraordinary clauses were intro- duced, by which, under pretence of spending a penny on a sandwich, people would be able to get as much liquor as they wished. I have this morning received a letter from the Swindon Licensed Victuallers' Protection Association. They tell me that they have written to the hon. Member for North Wilts, asking him to bring their views before the House, but they express a fear that he may not be in his place. I should be sorry to intervene between the hon. Member and his Constituents if he desired to speak, but he is not present, and it is perhaps doubtful that he would bring forward these facts if he were here. The Association state that there are in the neighbourhood of Swindon 28 clubs, with over 12,000 members; that the income derived is between £2,500 and £4,000 a year; that the clubs are allowed to open at half-past ten in the morning; that members are allowed to take drink away in bottles; and that the conditions are very unfair, seeing that the licensed victuallers have to pay heavy taxation, while the clubs are allowed to do as they like. The only justification for bringing forward a Bill of this sort, apart from the Sabbatarian argument, is that it will promote temperance. But these clubs will not be interfered with at all.

At present public-houses are closed at half-past ten in the morning.

But they are open afterwards. If a person cannot get what he wants at a public-house he may be driven to join one of these clubs and be exposed to all the temptations which they present. This Bill will tend to drive people into clubs, because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, a teetotal bench might close public-houses entirely. It is proposed that the distance limit should be increased from three to six miles. What will be the effect of that? To the owner of a motor it does not matter whether he goes three miles or six; the longer distance might make it the more pleasant because he would be a little more thirsty.

But they have cellars, have they not?

They do not carry them about with them.

But they would not require to motor three or six miles to get liquor.

They might be going on a journey and require lunch, but they would be unable to get a bottle of beer or a brandy and soda to drink with it unless they had travelled six miles. It would be easy enough for them, however, to cover the increased distance, but it would be very hard on a man who, going out for a constitutional on a Sunday afternoon, found himself compelled to walk 12 miles before he could get a drink. If the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, for instance, walked six miles on a hot Sunday afternoon he would be rather thirsty, and though he might drink ginger-beer out of a stone bottle, which has alcohol in it, he would probably drink two bottles, whereas: if he had had to walk only three miles he would have been satisfied with one. Thus the temptation will be to drink more. Statistics do not show that drunkenness in England where there is no Sunday closing is as great as it is in either Scotland, Wales, or Ireland, where Sunday closing obtains. I have here the figures showing the average numbers of arrests for Sunday drunkenness per 1,000 of the population for the years 1886–90 as compared with 1891–95. I believe there are no later statistics of Sunday drunkenness alone. In England in 1886–90 it was .49; in 1891–95, .42. In Wales in 1885 it was .55, and in 1891–5 .57, so that, while it had decreased in England where there was no Sunday closing, between 1885 and 1895, it increased in Wales. The same result occurred in Ireland. In that country the convictions for drinking offences on Sunday are more than double the number of those in England or Wales. The same is true of Scotland—the figure I was .58 both in 1885 and in 1886–7. Scotland does not seem to have been affected very much by Sunday closing. The most striking cases are to be found in the figures relating to the Welsh counties and Monmouthshire in respect of persons proceeded against for being drunk or drunk and disorderly on Sundays and weekdays together. I commend these figures to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley division. In 1906 the number of persons proceeded against was 7,417 in Glamorgan, 1,353 in Monmouth, 380 in Brecon, and 281 in Hereford. The right hon. Gentleman makes— may I say a grimace?

I wanted to indicate my opinion that the statement is absurd.

That is what I thought the right hon. Gentleman would say. Comparisons which go against the opinions held by the right hon. Gentleman: and which cannot be argued are absurd. I would rather hear arguments than a mere statement of opinion that these figures are absurd. Why they should be absurd I do not know.

Does the hon. Baronet suggest that it is fair to make comparisons between agricultural and industrial districts?

I am taking cases spread over the whole of the district. I am taking the cases of England and Wales, irrespective of whether the districts are industrial or rural. Of course, the hon. Member knows that the districts in England are very much more industrial than those districts in Wales. Notwithstanding that, the cases of conviction for drunkenness are less in England than in Wales. Without quoting the figures, the House may take it from me that the number of convictions in Glamorgan in 1895 were greater than in Monmouth and Hereford.

Are you aware that many of the convictions which are recorded in Glamorgan refer to cases where the drunkenness really takes place in Monmouth, in consequence of the three-mile limit?

The hon. Member says that the convictions in Glamorgan are swollen because the people of Glamorgan are obliged to take advantage of the three-mile limit to obtain liquor which the pedantry of the 34 Welsh Members will not allow them to get in their own country. The Chief Constable of Monmouthshire in his report in July, 1904, stated that there was a great deal of drunkenness over the border. [Ministerial cheers.] I am at a loss to understand why hon. Members should cheer that unless they are under the delusion that they are going to make people sober by Act of Parliament. If they suppose that they can pass an Act of Parliament which everybody will obey, then I understand hon. Members opposite. Surely they have some acquaintance with human nature. Surely they must know that if such a measure were passed it would only make people endeavour to get secretly that which they are not allowed to get publicly. It would encourage drinking instead of having the effect of lessening the excessive consumption of liquor. I wish to quote an extremely interesting speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Huddersfield at the National Liberal Club on 2nd December, 1907. The title of this Bill is "To Prohibit." [An HON. MEMBER: "Or regulate."] The hon. Member for Huddersfield said:—

"I would suggest that licensing proposals must not be directed to the outlawing of the traffic. The traffic in alcoholic liquors may be evil in the estimation of some: but it is a legal traffic, and its legality is based upon the fact that public opinion as a whole refuses to brand the consumption of alcoholic liquors as wrong. If the consumption of alcoholic liquors be not wrong, then the sale of those liquors must be justifiable. To attempt an arbitrary distinction between sale and consumption is as foolish as it is misleading. The point of view which would outlaw the traffic, and therefore drive it into the least worthy hands, is a point of view which, in my judgment, would imperil and not advance the moral progress of the community."

I commend to hon. Members opposite these further words:—

"It is true that I am here opposing a view widely current in the advanced temperance party, and a view, moreover, that has determined to a large extent the licensing legislation of the United States of America, but a close study of the laws and experience of that great country has convinced me that the attempt to degrade and outlaw the liquor traffic there has aggravated the evils that are associated with the trade, and has not secured the ends sincerely aimed at by the promoters of that legislation. So long as drink is sold, it should be sold under decent conditions and the sale should be in the hands of the most worthy, rather than the least worthy, members of the community."

I ask the House not to pass the second reading, because, in my opinion, it will not advance the cause of temperance by one inch, but it will advance the cause of drunkenness by encouraging clubs and places where illicit drinking can take place.

I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion for the second reading for his speech. We on this side admire his wide experience and his moderate and judicious views on this subject. We are sure that he will do what is perfectly right, and we are quite ready to leave the matter in his hands. The Mover of the Amendment has referred to a circular which has been sent to his Constituents I thought at first that he was going to quote something very dreadful, but I thought when he read it that I never heard anything more moderate than the words quoted by the hon. Member. We all get these kind of circulars, and I do not think I ever heard one drafted in more unobjectionable language. Of course, we admire the hon. Member for his courage, but I wish his courage had been exhibited in a more worthy cause. This is not an attack on the trade. Nothing of the kind. We are anxious in these days when shorter hours are being advocated all round to give the servants of the publicans—aye, and the publicans themselves—shorter hours. The hon. Gentleman said that beer would not keep from the Saturday to the Sunday. Perhaps not if it be carried in a jug; but there is every facility for everybody to get a pint bottle on the Saturday night. I am only sorry that the facilities for doing so are so great. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment quoted statistics about the sad effects of Sunday closing in Wales and in Scotland, and in other places If these statistics are all true, and the results of Sunday closing so bad in the towns and cities of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, why do not the people demand that the Sunday Closing Acts should be withdrawn? Why do they not demand of their representatives here the abolition of the Acts? Reference has been made to Hull. It has been said that the inhabitants did not go to the poll, but the majority of those who did go to the poll voted in favour of Sunday closing.

Thirty thousand did not vote.

There are 250,000 people.

If 30,000 abstained and the others voted, then a large majority were in favour of Sunday closing. Wherever a poll has been taken the vast majority of the people have been in favour of Sunday closing. I do not believe that the working classes want these facilities for drink. I do not think they want them for their own sakes, while I believe they wish to see shorter hours for their brothers and sisters in the trade. Those engaged in the trade work longer hours than workers in any other trade. The barmen, barmaids, and potmen have to work from 60 to 90 hours a week, and the least we can do is to mitigate that evil. If Sunday cannot altogether be a day of rest to these workers, let us make it one as much as possible, so that these workers may have some time for themselves. The Colonies have bean referred to and the Colonies on this question are an example to the Mother Country. Look at Auckland, where the licensed victuallers agreed on their own accord to close. I do not say that we are quite ready for this at home; but I wish to say that the Colonies are a great example to us.

As regards the Continent and Sunday closing, I may say that England has become more pleasure-loving on the Sunday than used to be the case, and we want to influence the working people in the direction of giving them better opportunities for rest and recreation. I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced; and I hope that the House will give it a hearty support.

The hon. Baronet, one of the Members for the City of London, referred in his speech to Scotland. I do not know whether he knows anything of the habits of the workers in that country or not, or whether he knows from practical experience anything of the benefits of Sunday closing or not. I have had that experience. In one district I know the licensing magistrates allowed seven-day licences. On Sunday morning on the way to chapel my wife said there were to be seen any Sunday morning more drunken men, as the result of these licences, than she had seen in Manchester for five years. The abuse became so great that the magistrates withdrew the licences, with the result that you could not see a drunken individual where formerly there had been many. The hon. Baronet also stated that he thought the debate had been confined to the question as to whether the Bill would promote temperance. There is another reason for Sunday closing, and that is an industrial reason. I happen to be connected with the great iron and steel industry of this country. The men in England have to go to work at 6 o'clock on Sunday afternoons. For the last 25 years the workmen engaged in that industry have been agitating for the purpose of being allowed to start at midnight on Sunday. Innumerable conferences have been held with the employers, but the men are always met with the same reply:

"The public-houses are open until half-past ten on Sunday nights. If we permitted you to come in at midnight, the greater portion of the men would come in drunk. Get Sunday closing and we will consider it."

Therefore I support the closing of public-houses on Sundays for that reason. During the discussion of the Government Licensing Bill of last year I had the privilege of placing before the House an illustration of this matter in respect of Monmouth and South Wales. In South Wales, as a result of Sunday closing, no steel works start before midnight on Sunday night. In Monmouth, where the public-houses are open on Sunday, we cannot get the works to start at midnight, for the reason I have given, as is advanced by the employers. The great Ebbw Vale steel and ironworks are under an obligation to the workmen that as soon as Sunday closing is extended to Monmouthshire so soon will they permit their men to start at midnight. So there is a very strong industrial reason for Sunday closing. This morning I had the curiosity to go through what is known in my office as the "Investments." I have always been anxious that workmen should brighten their homes, and should have homes worthy of the name, and years ago I engineered a scheme whereby workmen might become the owners of their own homes. I find that in Scotland, where there is Sunday closing, and in South Wales, where there is Sunday closing, as against England where the public-houses are open, 10 are owners of their own houses in Scotland and Wales, as against one in England, where there is Sunday opening. I do not know that it would be wise to draw the inference that it is because of Sunday closing, but there is the fact in respect to the figures. Then, again, as a trades union official of twenty years' experience, it has been my lot to travel the whole of the iron and steel works of England and South Wales, and some of Scotland. Unfortunately, trade union meetings are largely held in public-houses, and, as a consequence, I have come in contact with hundreds of publicans, and I find that the vast majority of them are in favour of Sunday closing if they were free from the tyranny and domination of the brewer. When I contested the Division that I have the honour to represent, I stood, if I may use the phrase, as a whole hogger. I wanted Sunday opening abolished altogether. I was asked to come to a private meeting where a great number of my friends were assembled, as they desired to heckle me; I went, and one man asked me why I should interfere with his liberty if he went out on a Sunday and had a drink. That is the root, I said, of the whole mischief. I answered: "You want your liberty at the expense of somebody, who has to remain behind the bar to serve you." The whole thing is selfishness, and as an official of a trades union of 17,000 members, I can say, having had every opportunity of becoming acquainted with their opinions, that they are almost entirely in favour of Sunday closing. They do not want to travel six miles for the purpose of getting drink. My experience is that those workers who desire to have a drink on Sunday, get it in on Saturday night. As a matter of fact, the custom has become prominent in recent years in that direction, and I believe that probably is one of the reasons why drunkenness is becoming less among the workers. I am pleased to say that during 25 years' ex- perience as a trade union official I notice a great improvement in the habits of the people in that direction. Personally, I am an abstainer, not because I am afraid of taking too much, but from the point of view that among the members of my union my influence would be less if I was to preach temperance and not to practice it. I think the Members of this House can do a great deal of good by limiting the opportunities for getting alcoholic stimulants.

I am quite sure that the light comedy of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is some relief to the tension of a debate like this. At the same time, I do not think he either takes himself seriously or that this House takes him seriously upon such an important question. I rise specially to emphasise that portion of this Bill, perhaps the one portion taken exception to by people who support the main principle. I refer to the discretionary powers given to the magistrates. I feel this—the Bill would be deprived of half its value if the hours are made statutory. And for this reason, if it be made statutory public-houses throughout the United Kingdom, would practically remain open whether they are required or not. The brewer in the first instance would insist on having the house kept open. The publican will feel it is necessary to keep his house open if the neighbouring publicans keep their houses open, otherwise he may lose some portion of his weekly trade.

But I think the best illustration of the operation of this power of magistrates may be given by the power which they now have of opening certain houses for special reasons, at, say, five o'clock in the morning. My own licensing bench, which has several hundreds of public-houses to license, does upon special application give leave to, say, half a dozen or more public-houses to open at five o'clock in the morning. If it was statutory to open at five o'clock in the morning then probably the whole of the public-houses in Norwich would be opened at that hour, but as it is not statutory an application has to be made for special reasons. This extension is limited to a very few, and I feel that that would be the difference in the operation, between the liberty given upon special reasons shown to the bench to allow houses to be open for these hours, instead of making it statutory. It would limit the number of houses very largely, it would meet the case where special necessity arises, and it would relieve the whole of the trade from the obligation to open their houses, which I am quite sure a number of them desire not to be compelled to do. On this ground I think this provision is a very desirable one, and I only hope the Government will see their way to press the provisions of the Licensing Bill of last Session in regard to this matter, and will give every scope for expression of opinion in Committee on this matter, so that the general opinion may be obtained of those who discuss this Bill.

We have heard from the hon. Baronet and others a number of statistics, some of which I venture to say were perfectly unintelligible to this House, because the data upon which they were given were not offered us at all. The statistics of the hon. Baronet in no case, so far as I know, referred to Sunday closing; they referred to the general growth of temperance in one country as against another, but they nowhere denned whether the result of Sunday closing had reduced inebriety in the district to which it had applied or whether it had reduced drinking. It seems to me that the fact that England may be at this moment rather less addicted to excessive drinking than Wales, proves nothing as to the efficiency, or otherwise, of Sunday closing. Has Sunday closing in Wales reduced Sunday drinking? Would Sunday closing in England reduce Sunday drinking? I think no one can doubt that when the figures alone are taken from that aspect that Sunday closing does enormously reduce Sunday drinking, of course you may use figures to any extent whatever, but the idea of quoting a county like Glamorganshire against a county like Herefordshire is futile. We know that the habits and earnings of a great industrial population are altogether different, and there are other reasons, such as the migratory and sea-going population, which make such comparisons utterly futile. What I have to reply to those statistics is this, that the hon. Baronet and others would have this House believe that those who are in favour of temperance are always promoting measures which are subversive of temperance, and those who are interested in the trade are promoting provisions which would bring about the reduction of drink and would be, in their hands, a much greater temperance measure than that which we propose

I am not connected with the trade.

I am not saying the hon. Baronet is. I am only arguing on the general principle. I would far rather take the general principle than deal with figures in the form in which they have been dealt with. So little has been advanced from the other side of the House, which is in any sense new, that has not been over and over again answered and completely destroyed, that I do not propose to go over in detail the general principle on which this measure is based, but I do want to say two or three words about the position of the measure itself. We had this question very largely discussed during the debates on the Licensing Bill of last Session, and I think there can be no doubt in the minds of hon. Members that had it so happened that the clauses affecting Sunday closing could have been taken separately that they would have passed not only this House by an enormous majority, but they would have passed the other House by a substantial majority and would have become law. I think under these circumstances we approach this subject under very favourable conditions to-day. I refer first of all to the very sympathetic speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who, speaking on this question has described it as "this great and ever-present tragedy of drink." I think the sympathy which he showed on that occasion induced us to believe that he was anxious at least to relieve Sunday of this "great and ever-present tragedy of drink."

He appealed to hon. Members below the Gangway to give him information as to the desires of the great masses of the working classes on this question, and if my recollection serves me that appeal called up at once my hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, who gave him an answer which should have satisfied him. I hope it did satisfy him and we hope we may see him in the Division Lobby to-day supporting the second reading of this Bill. At any rate, that answer satisfied the great majority of the House, as perhaps the bulk of them were satisfied before that all the leaders of the Labour party are in favour—not all for the same reason, but still all in favour—of the suppression to a very great extent of this drink business on a Sunday. Then in still further support of the proposition as to the favourable prospects of this Bill, I think I may venture to refer to what took place in another place during the discussions of that House. The late Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Chancellor for once at least appeared to be arm in arm upon some great political and moral questions. The Lord Chancellor says this:— the interests of those who are engaged for such long hours in this trade, who, in these days of shorter hours, certainly call for protection from this House, and I believe would welcome the protection which the House would give them.

I approach this question with more hope in my heart than at any other time in the history of it, because I feel that the bulk of our fellow citizens have made up their minds that this portion of the Licensing Bill at least should be put on the Statute Book with the least possible delay, and I believe, in reading this Bill a second time, we shall be doing that which is in accordance with the vast majority of those who are engaged in all the philanthropic and active work of the country for the betterment of the people.

It is very refreshing sometimes to find one's self in happy accord with hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. It does not very often happen. I am greatly pleased to think that the hon. Member for Gorton spoke in such a sense of the industrial classes of the country that one can be in accord with him. He tells us that our people are becoming increasingly sober in their habits. One's own personal observation, in close touch with working people for 30 years, has shown an immense step in the direction of sobriety, and however much we may appreciate that condition of things it acts on our minds probably differently. Upon my mind it makes the impression that we ought to be very careful how we tyrannise in a matter of this kind. One feels all the more diffident in dealing with the liberty of others on this subject, because, like the hon. Member for Gorton, I have been an habitual water drinker for upwards of 30 years. Instead of making one more disposed to force such principles on the lives and habits of others it makes one very diffident indeed, because, so far as one's personal experience is concerned, it is difficult to realise that there are trials in the experience of other lives. One quite recognises that from time to time something should be done, but to-day one has been more and more confused as the time has gone on. The Mover of the Bill is opposed to prohibition, and this is a prohibitory Bill. The Seconder is strongly in favour of certain provisions in the measure, but is not in favour of this Bill. The Prime Minister was also in favour of some measure—I rather fancy it was a measure of his own, or the measure that died last Session. But he clearly is not in favour of this Bill. Then we are in a state of chaos. We hardly know where we are. The Mover does not want a prohibitory Bill, the Seconder does not want a Bill which, by placing the justices of the country in a very invidious position with regard to it, would have provisions which he cannot approve. The Prime Minister does not want it at all, and says, "Send it upstairs, and then something else must be evolved." It seems a very unsatisfactory position. I recognise that it may be desirable for something to be done, but clearly this measure is not one which at the instigation of the introducer and its supporter, the Prime Minister, we can approve.

I should like to ask whether the Bill really means what it says? Does it really mean, for instance, that the National Liberal Club, the Reform, and the Carlton are going to be closed on Sundays? In all these places intoxicating drinks are sold.

Intoxicating liquors are not sold at clubs in a technical sense.

If the hon. Baronet goes into the Reform Club and tries to get intoxicating liquor without paying, he will find—

In a technical and legal sense drinks are distributed in clubs, and not sold.

I quite recognise that certain words can be read into the Bill, but we are not dealing with the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman might propose to word it, but as it is worded now: "All places where intoxicating liquors are sold are to be closed on Sundays."

"Sold."

They are sold in the clubs. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite really want this Bill or something else. It is perfectly clear on another ground that the Bill does not meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it certainly provides for the closing of places where intoxicating drinks are sold, and that would apply to the clubs. I have not the least objection to the Carlton or any other club being closed on Sunday, but is that what the hon. Gentleman wants? They want to read into the Bill other provisions which are not here, which makes us more confused, and therefore on a fourth ground this is not a Bill which ought to pass its second reading on this occasion. And if it does not apply to clubs I should certainly oppose it on that ground, because in many parts of the country clubs are a greater source of intemperance than public-houses, and ought clearly to be under proper and efficient supervision. Again, if certain clubs are to be excluded then the working man is to be treated worse than the man of the middle or of the upper classes, because those who are rich enough to make provision for themselves can do what they like. The working man or the poor man cannot provide himself with an extensive supply of bottled beer, but he must send to the public-house on Sunday to get it fresh. Some hon. Gentlemen laugh, but there is no ground for laughter, because working men cannot lay in the stores that hon. Gentlemen can, and we have no right to pass class legislation of that kind, which deals unfairly with a certain section of our population, and in my view constitutes an attitude of tyranny towards them. It has been said that the publican ought to have his day's rest on Sunday. What is to prevent him closing his public-house if he likes. He can do so now if he wishes; but under this Bill any bench of magistrates can select a house here or there and have those open to the exclusion of all the other houses. That would be unfair to them. But if a publican wishes that he and his family should have a complete day's rest on Sunday let him shut his place, as many have done.

Will the owners allow him?

If the person who owns a tied house wishes to prevent Sunday closing there is no compulsion on the man to take the house. He takes the house and knows the conditions under which he is going to work. If he consulted me about it I would say he might find some other occupation of a more reliable, and, perhaps, more happily circumstanced kind, but the man has a perfectly free option to take or not to take the position.

That does not close the house.

I understand that; but when taking the place he might say, "I wish to close it on Sundays."

He would not get it.

That is not the fault of the owner. The owner naturally stipulates for what he would like to have done. That is the case in every contract with employers that we have. You, representing your Constituents here, find that they require certain things. For instance, that you should attend here sometimes, that you should vote occasionally against the Government, and things of that kind. All these things have to be considered when we enter into employment of any kind. In the same way if a publican takes a public-house—unless he is the proprietor of it, as in Scotland they generally are—he talks over with the man who is going to employ him the details. He says what he requires; his employer does the same; and they come to a mutual arrangement. Therefore every man is at perfect liberty if he desires to make a stipulation with those from whom he takes the house that it is to be closed on Sunday. It is a very invidious position to place the magistrates in that they should be called on to decide whether in a certain locality one or two public-houses are to be open a certain period of the Sunday. They are also to decide which of the public-houses in the district are to remain closed. That is an extremely difficult thing for a bench to decide. It has been my privilege, like many others, to be a magistrate for many years, and one knows the difficulties that would arise in circumstances like that. It is an extremely difficult position to place the magistrates in, and one that we should not ask them to occupy.

At the end of the Bill we find that the distance for a bonâ fide traveller is to be six miles instead of three. I do not know that that is a fair thing. If a man goes out for a walk on Sunday he probably does not walk more than three miles. It is probably not good for him to walk more. If he goes three miles out and back it is enough for a middle-aged man to do; he gets all the good he can out of it without fatiguing himself. I am not quite clear that we are justified in saying that a man should be prevented from getting any kind of refreshment on a Sunday walk. I cannot see that there is not a spirit of tyranny and of coercion here, and when we consider that our people are, according to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gorton, rapidly becoming more and more sober, it seems to me hardly the moment to exercise a spirit of tyranny. But it might be six miles or sixty miles. The Bill says "or such further distance as the justices in the case of any particular licensed premises may determine." A bench of magistrates who might have some feeling against a certain hotel proprietor or a public-house proprietor could easily say, so far as that house is concerned, while all the other houses may supply intoxicating liquors to persons coming distances of six miles, that house shall not supply anybody who does, not come twenty miles or any other distance. In that way a condition of competition might arise which would be altogether unfair. These are grounds which lead me to doubt whether this is a measure we want to pass into law. It does not seem to be even a Bill that hon. Gentlemen opposite want. They say that, although something is desirable, they do not want this Bill, and until they can come here and place before this House a measure that is satisfactory to them, the House will be well advised not to read this Bill a second time, and allow hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are naturally deeply interested in this subject, a little more time to bring forward a well-thought-out measure free from any taint of tyranny and fair in its provisions to all concerned. When they bring such a measure forward we can go carefully into-the subject again, and ask for a second reading of a measure which will meet with general approval in every part of the House.

The hon. Member who has just sat down may be taken as a very good representative of those who wish to pose as temperance reformers whilst opposing all temperance reforms. The House will remember that the hon. Gentleman proceeded at first on the assumption that the Bill applies to-clubs as well as public-houses, and he began to make out a strong case because he thought this measure included clubs.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where in this Bill he finds any provisions stating that this Bill does not apply to clubs?

The Bill applies to the sale of intoxicating liquors, and that is used in a technical sense. Perhaps I may inform the hon. Gentleman that liquor is not sold in clubs in the strict sense of the term; liquor is merely distributed in clubs and the laws for the sale of intoxicating liquors do not apply to clubs. That is obvious to all who know anything about the question. When the hon. Member found he was mistaken in opposing the Bill because it applied to clubs, he forthwith began to find fault with the measure because it did not apply to clubs. Opponents of measures like this are always telling us they are supporters of temperance reform, but their reply is, "Not thus, and not now." With regard to the case referred to by the hon. Member I would remind him that four-fifths of the publicans of this country are tied tenants and the vast majority of them have no choice, and can only have their houses on condition that they keep open every hour the law allows. Reference was made to bonâ-fide travellers, and to the fact that there was a new provision to this Bill, suggesting that the magistrates might make the distance more than six miles. The object of that provision is this: Everyone knows that outside most large towns there are some beautiful, quiet, country spots, residential places and quiet villages which every Sunday are turned into a pandemonium by the people who drive or walk out there, not so much because they want a walk, as because they want a drink. They might, some of them, be just within, some just outside, the six miles. It is to give power to the bench, if there be a special district of that kind, which they would use of closing them both—it may be five miles, or it may be one beyond the six miles. I should like before passing to other points to say how much I regretted what the Prime Minister said in his speech about wishing to revert to the proposals of the Bill of last year. It is true we gladly welcomed the Bill of last year, but it did not practically contain Sunday closing proposals. It did contain proposals for considerably reducing the hours of sale, "but it gave the option to the licensing justices. Surely we are not for the future to regard every provision of that character as the maximum which we are aiming at! This is the minimum of Sunday closing in this Bill that has ever been proposed to the House. Bills in the past going much further have been supported by Members of this Front Bench, by the whole of the Liberal party, and I think we might ask that when we bring in a Bill for Sunday closing of a small and more diluted nature than ever before, at least we might wait till we get to the Committee stage before we have the Government of the day suggesting that it should be diluted further, and made still weaker. It is one thing to propose a restriction of the hours in a general scheme of licensing reform; it is another to have a separate Sunday Closing Bill. For Scotland, for Wales, for Ireland Sunday closing was carried by a separate Bill, and although the Government might think —and possibly rightly—that the proposals they made last year in the Bill were as large and as strong as they were justified in putting in the Bill, there is no reason why this House should not vote to-day, and so carry Sunday closing a step further on the lines of this Bill.

Personally, I think the present proposals are much better than last year. I think there is great force in the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich: if you enact Sunday closing then it will remain Sunday closing in the vast majority of public-houses in this country. If you enact Sunday opening for a limited number of hours it will remain Sunday opening for the vast majority of houses. The intention of the Bill is that there shall be general Sunday closing; but in special cases, where the justices think there is a necessity for the public-house to be opened, they should have the power to allow them to be opened at these specified hours. But if you specify the hours, and leave it to the justices to close, I am certain that there will be far less Sunday closing than there is now. Therefore, I do hope when we get to the Committee stage we shall be able to deal with this question without having against us the dead-weight of the Government in that direction. We have had a great many statistics, and so-called facts, brought before us by the opponents of this Bill. They are nearly all from one source.

They have been most carefully prepared by some very able and some very ingenious men. Those who know the statistics see from the very way in which they are prepared and brought forward how weak the case is. I have myself been referred to in this debate—I am sorry the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill is not in his place. He made a quotation from an article which I wrote in "The National Review" in January of last year. I cannot think he would have made such an extract himself. It is an illustration of the kind of thing that is circulated to the Members opposite, and used in debate. If they know something of facts and figures and the way these things are put together they would not use them in the way they do. This extract was quoted from my article. Nothing else was quoted. I was quoted as saying:— you read the article you find I recommended that in this country Sunday closing should be enacted, power being given to the licensing authority to permit limited opening in special cases. I referred to that as a useful reform in the very words following those which have been quoted. I said: "Were it not for the restrictions and regulations in operation the state of things would be much worse than it is." The method of selecting a few words without the context and then circulating them in printed documents for the use of hon. Members opposite is most misleading and most unfair. I should like to deal with a few statistics which have been given. Hon. Members will have noticed that when statistics were quoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite they did not take the statistics for drunkenness in Scotland as against previous statistics for that country, but they compared that country with England, Wales with England, and Ireland with England. But I submit that what should be done is to compare Scotland with Sunday opening to Scotland without Sunday opening, to compare Ireland with Sunday closing to Ireland with Sunday opening; to compare the same places and the same people under the two different conditions, and not to compare sparsely-populated agricultural counties with thickly populated mining districts. Take the city of Glasgow. Before Sunday closing more than 50 years ago there were three times as many arrests on Sunday as they have now on Sunday, although the population is very much larger now than it was then.

They drink outside.

There is no evidence whatever of that. Take the arrests for drunknenness on various days in Glasgow during 1907, the last year for which I have the figures. On Sundays, when men are at liberty and when the public-houses are closed, there was an average during the year of eight arrests per Sunday—an average of eight in the 24 hours. On Saturdays there was an average of 170 arrests, and on other days 45 arrests. In the arrests there is a drop from 170 arrests on the Saturday, when the houses are open, to eight on the Sunday, when the houses are closed. Then opponents of Sunday closing say that it leads to an increased consumption of spirits. It has done nothing of the kind. The consumption in Scotland per head is very little more now than half what it was before Sunday closing was established. But during the same period in England, where there is Sunday opening the consumption of spirit per head has gone up and it is 50 per cent, greater than it was. Take Ireland. Two and a half years before the operation of the Sunday Closing Act the arrests for drunkenness were over 11,000. In two and a half years they were reduced to a little more than 4,000, a decrease of more than half, and also a great decrease in the consumption of spirits. Take the state of things in Cardiff. Before 1881, with 80,000 of a population, the arrests for drunkenness were 62. In 1907 the average was 8, with a population of 187,000, an enormous diminution in the same town with the same people. What is the kind of comparison to make? If you want to compare towns, take Cardiff and Newport. In Cardiff in 1906, with a population of 187,000, there were six Sunday convictions. In Newport, with a population of 75,000, there were 42. There is no Sunday opening in Cardiff, and there is in Newport. We are told this Bill will promote clubs, that we shall have more clubs. I should have thought we should have heard no more of the club business after the debates on the Licensing Bill last Session. We all remember how that Bill was denounced because it did not deal strictly and stringently with clubs. When we came to the club clauses an Amendment was proposed to strengthen the provisions with regard to clubs, but some hon. Members opposite resisted those provisions, and would not have them. Now they tell us this Bill would promote the establishment of clubs.

What are the facts? Clubs do not abound most where Sunday closing prevails. In England we have 21 clubs for every 100,000 of the population, in Scotland 15, in Wales 13, and in the Sunday closing part of Ireland four. Clubs are most numerous in England, where we have Sunday opening, in proportion to the population. Take the neighbouring towns of Newport and Cardiff. Newport, which has Sunday opening, has one club for every 2,700 people, and Cardiff, which has Sunday closing, has one for every 5,400. That is, in proportion to the population, there are twice as many clubs in Newport as in Cardiff. It seems to me those figures of hon. Members opposite will not bear examination. The same predictions, the same objections, were raised when the Sunday Closing Bill was promoted for Scotland. And for Ireland and for Wales we had the same statements, the same arguments. After the Acts had been I passed the same Gentlemen said that these same conditions occurred, that there was more drunkenness, there was secret drinking. In each case, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, Select Committees or Royal Commissions were appointed to specially investigate the working of each one of those Acts, and in each case the report and result was the same—that the Acts had been a great success, that the allegations were unfounded, and that those conditions did not exist and had not occurred.

Here we are again after three experiences of that sort extending over half a century, the same old story, the same old concoction of figures, the same old statements. They are not worth the breath that uttered them. Surely they should pay some attention to the judgment of the people of those countries. Scotland has had Sunday closing for half a century, and Ireland and Wales for a quarter of a century. Now you cannot find a Member representing a single Constituency in Scotland or in Ireland or in Wales who will rise in his place and move the repeal of that Act. Further than that, you cannot find a representative elective authority or local authority in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales that will present a petition asking this House to repeal the Sunday Closing Act. If it leads to all this demoralisation, secret drinking, and drunkenness, is there no patriotic person to be found in Scotland, Ireland, or Wales— are there no sensible people there? Are there no people who appreciate the great evil which is being done to their nation? Surely, as a matter of common sense, when we know that the people of these countries would resist to the death any proposal to again thrust the liquor traffic upon them on Sunday, we may take encouragement in this country, and refuse to take notice of all these fairy tales. I am always much interested in the speeches of the hon. Baronet opposite. He is so anxious for the working men. He does not care at all about the gentleman who has a cellar and a motor-car; it is the working man's convenience and comfort about which he is so concerned. But in this matter the working man when electing a representative to this House can look after himself. There are here many Members who are themselves working men, who know working men and mingle with them; others of us too con- tend that we also know something of the working men; but of those who specially represent the working classes and know their wants and wishes, practically every one supports this legislation. I think, therefore, we may take it that the working classes desire it, and I hope the Bill will be read a second time.

We are in extreme doubt as to what are the views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first supporter of the Bill objected to it because it involved prohibition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, who also supported the Bill, objected to it because it gave too much power to the justices. The Prime Minister, I understand, made a statement of a very important character, which turned the Bill upside-down and inside-out. The main proposal in the Bill appears to be that every public-house is to be closed on Sunday, unless permission is given by the justices for it to be open. Is the new proposal of the Government that public-houses are to remain open unless they are closed by the justices? If so, the Government are going to use their powers to reverse the whole principle of the Bill, and when it gets into Committee an entirely different principle will have to be dealt with. I gathered from the eloquent speech of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley that he does not approve of the Prime Minister's proposal. With these conflicting views we are in a considerable maze and difficulty. How is the Committee to wade through the different proposals? I am one of the representatives of Scotland, where we have Sunday closing. I have read many of the hon. Baronet's writings on temperance, because I regard him as an expert on the question, and in one article he says that, broadly speaking, improved conditions are in force in Scotland, but intemperance and all the evils of drunkenness still abound. I am afraid I must agree with the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that, notwithstanding Sunday closing in Scotland, there was a great deal of drunkenness and intemperance in that country.

My point was that it would be very much worse if there were no restrictions and regulations.

Then it is purely a matter of degree. When the right hon. Gentleman states that there is a great deal of intemperance in Scotland he states a fact, but when he states that perhaps more rigid Sunday closing in England would produce better results he merely states an opinion based on no ascertainable facts.

If we had Sunday opening in Scotland it would be worse.

I do not wish to enter into any particular controversy with the right hon. Gentleman. He took us back to 1852, and he told us of the speeches and arguments which were used on previous occasions. I recognised that a great many of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used were arguments which I had heard put forward in previous debates. The right hon. Gentleman has only given his carefully prepared figures. He loses sight of the fact that since 1852 whisky has been made dearer by legislation, that licence duties have been doubled and trebled during that period, and that each time licence duties have been increased the consumption of liquor has also decreased. I do not think he will dispute that the question of wages has a great deal to do with the consumption of spirits. When trade is good, employment abundant, and wages are high, then there is a larger consumption of alcohol.

The right hon. Gentleman criticised the argument of my hon. Friend that if you close public-houses clubs will be set up. He said that clubs are not so numerous per head of the population in Scotland as in England. What is the reason? We had a Licensing Act in 1903 for Scotland which required certain stringent regulations before a club can be registered. These do not prevail in England. In that direction the right hon. Gentleman will find why clubs are less numerous in Scotland than in England. It has nothing to do with Sunday closing. What I would like to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite can give us some information as to the attitude of the Government, as we have to make up our minds as to how we shall vote on this question. Do the Government propose to send to a Committee the somewhat difficult task of reconciling those somewhat diverse opinions to which I have referred of turning this Bill inside out, and sending it back to the House, possibly to be starred? Do the Government by their support of this Bill intend to raise something in the nature of a monument to their defunct Licensing Bill, although they do not propose to legislate on its lines? What is to be the attitude of the Government? Would it not be better for them to say, "Read this Bill a second time as a general indication of our interest in this question, which we hope and expect will bring us so many votes in the country." I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes if this Bill receives a second reading, to send it to a Committee upstairs, or allow it to be taken in Committee of the whole House?

The main points of the hon. Gentleman's questions have been answered in advance by the Prime Minister, whom I think the hon. Member did not hear. The Government proposes to follow the ordinary course, and let the Bill be sent to a Standing Committee. There are certain divergences between the proposals of this Bill and those in the Bill of last year with regard to Sunday closing, which the House endorsed by a large majority. The machinery proposed by the Bill of last year is to be preferred to those in this Bill, and we trust that these changes of detail will be made in the Standing Committee.

I think that some of the points in this Bill have not attracted the attention which they deserve. There is a class of licensed premises called hotels which exist for the convenience of many of His Majesty's subjects. It will, perhaps, not have been noticed that the fervour of the Gentleman who instructed the draftsman caused the draftsman to disregard the interests or convenience of people who use hotels. The fact is, one would almost think that the gentleman who instructed the draftsman to prepare this Bill, although he might be very largely in society, was thinking only of drunkards. What is the effect of this Bill? It means that every hotel—that is, "a place where intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for sale"— shall be closed for the whole of Sunday. What does that mean? Is nobody to go to the hotel? Is nobody to be received there? Is nobody to enter the hotel between Saturday night and Monday morning? I cannot help thinking the promoters of this Bill can hardly have had these things in mind, except the fanaticism which causes them to disregard everybody who drinks at all has caused them to disregard everybody who wants to go to an hotel and desires to have the ordinary comforts of the place. I should really like to know what is the intention of the promoters of this Bill. Is it their intention that all hotels should be closed up on Sundays, and that not only should guests not be allowed to go in, but that the house should be cleared of all guests from Saturday and no one allowed in again until Monday morning. If that is so, a very large number of His Majesty's subjects will be1 very prejudicially affected.

I do not feel quite clear as to what the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to the Home Office said would become of this Bill after it had passed its second reading. The measure as it stands now is one for Sunday closing. The Prime Minister told us he was in favour of a limitation of the hours of opening on Sundays. I want to know, if this Bill goes through, will the Government give it the halo of their sanction and pass it through the House of Commons? I listened with interest to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley. As a rule he is always in favour of anything of a repressive or coercive character. The right hon. Gentleman did not put forward a single strong argument in favour of passing this Bill into law. I am of opinion that this Bill is of far too drastic a character. I do not think public opinion is ripe for passing into law a measure that would close the public-houses in this country altogether on Sunday. With regard to the question of the limitation of hours there is a great deal to be said on that point. What we are discussing now is not a limitation of hours on Sunday, but an actual closing of public-houses on Sunday. I do not believe that restrictive measures of that kind are in the interests of temperance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley twitted us with not giving our support to what he called temperance legislation. I should like to tell him we do not think this is in the interests of temperance. I am convinced that legislation of a restrictive and coercive character, instead of bringing about an advance in the cause of temperance, goes entirely in the opposite direction. What are the arguments in favour of passing this measure into law? There is first of all the Sabbatarian argument. There may be something to be said for the view that Sunday opening makes for a very large amount of hard work. I do not know why we should begin with the closing of public-houses on Sunday. There is a great deal of work which has to be done on Sunday, and I do not see that there is any object in bringing in a measure for the purpose of carrying out Sabbatarian principles for one section and not for all. We have Sunday closing in Scotland and parts of Ireland and Wales, and I do not know anyone who is prepared to assert that any one of those countries is more sober than the country of England, in which there is no Sunday closing.

There is another point upon which I contend that no one in this House has laid sufficient stress. This is the acme of class legislation. We in this House who do not require refreshments in public-houses on Sunday are laying down class legislation for the masses of the people of this country who have not the privilege of a private cellar of their own. An hon. Member referred to the representatives of the working classes below the Gangway, but I should like to know if there is any measure of coercion or oppression introduced in this House, if it does not always receive the support of hon. Members. We all know the aim and object of those hon. Members is to establish in this country a system of Socialism, which I do not think hon. Members opposite will contend is not the grossest system of tyranny. With regard to the anomalies which must be created if this Bill becomes law, we know perfectly well that in other parts of the world where there is prohibition, and drastic prohibition, there are always evasions, and if Sunday closing is brought about it will merely drive the class of persons who are in the habit of using public-houses on Sunday to obtain the liquor they require in shebeens, which are called clubs. I am perfectly convinced that there is no legislation of this kind which can in any way benefit the temperance cause, and that temperance in this country cannot be brought about by Act of Parliament.

Sunday closing has had an uncertain record in this House. It has been passed on one occasion by a very small number of votes—I do not know what the number was—and afterwards it was rejected by a considerable number of votes. I do not think, however, that we can say that there has been in this House any large measure of support for the Bill. With regard to the statistics which are always brought forward on this question, I think that they are in opposition to the case for the Bill, because, as I have said, in other parts of the country, where there is such a Bill, statistics have shown that the drunkenness has increased and is in excess of the figures which exist in this country. I sincerely hope the Amendment which has been moved with regard to this Bill will be carried.

On this occasion I do not pretend to be at one with hon. Members around me. I am one of those who since I have been in Parliament have always been pledged to vote for Sunday closing, and have done my best to carry out my pledge. In the rural districts which I represent I do not think that the Sunday closing will be attended with great inconvenience to the working classes, and T do not believe that there is any strong feeling there in favour of keeping public-houses open on Sunday. I fully recognise that there are certain amendments which will have to be made in the Bill, because it is perfectly plain that there are many places where hotels are needed where reasonable refreshments can be obtained. These will have to be exempted from the Bill. I know that in making this proposal I am laying myself open to the charge that I am in favour of one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that is the chief argument we have to face on this occasion.

I see no reason why those who have no club to go to should not purchase a small cask or a few bottles of beer to drink with their Sunday lunch. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says that would not encourage temperance. I rather differ, because I think there are a good number of people who will forget to order in their beer, and it is only those who really feel it is a great necessity to have a glass of beer with their Sunday lunch who will take the precaution on Saturday night to order in a few bottles. The statistics of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley do not quite draw the conclusion that he wished to draw, especially those which refer to Scotland. He quoted that the arrests for drunkenness were far fewer on Sundays than on Saturdays. That may tell to a certain extent against Sunday closing, for from my experience in many of the towns and villages in Scotland there is a very large number of people who on Saturday nights appear to drink a great deal more than is good for them. That may be owing to the fact that they do not get drink on Sunday so easily, and have a double supply on Saturday night. I think this is a most reprehensible habit, and one that we should all desire to check, but at the same time perhaps it is worse when there is very great drinking on Sunday night, which prohibits a man from taking up his occupation on Monday morning. I remember once, when standing for a seaport, being strongly pressed to pledge myself to vote in favour of greatly reducing the hours of opening on Sunday, and one of the chief arguments in favour of it was that it was the habit of some seafaring men to go to the public-house on Sunday night and have too much to drink, and not be able to start with their ship on Monday morning. I sincerely hope that with some modifications this Bill will obtain a second reading and may pass into law.

, who was indistinctly heard, said: I think it is a very difficult matter to decide whether to support the Bill or not. By the Sunday closing of public-houses the sale of drink will be forced into other channels, and I think that is the principal reason why Members of the trade are opposed to it. If the consumption of drink through other channels was also stopped by Act of Parliament the whole trade would acquiesce in any measure of this sort, because it would give them a period of lest which they do not now possess. It has been stated to-day that the number of convictions against public-houses for selling drink to drunken persons was only 623. There are 100,000 public-houses in the country and out of these there are only some 600 cases in the 12 months with which drunkenness has been brought to their doors. It follows, therefore, that the drunkenness which has existed in the country must be from some other source than from the supply of drink on the premises of publicans. It is only fair to say that that is so by the statistics which we have before us. Therefore we, as members of the trade, consider that we, as representing the Government, who are partners in that trade, and very large partners financially, do our duty in safeguarding the morals of the people of this country by controlling the drink to the best of our ability, and we say now that if you pass this measure you will force the sale of drink into uncontrolled channels, and we shall then have a pretty good proof of that, which I now say. You have had divisions in this House before. The majority of the English Members have always been against it. A snatch division was once taken when the majority was small, but later on a division took place upon that Bill and there were 187 noes against 85 of English Members, or a majority of 92. That majority was reduced to 57, altogether because, like the fox that has lost his brush, the Welsh and Scotch Members wanted to see England brought under the same category as themselves, and they diminished that majority by a majority of 8 in the case of the Welsh, and 34 in that of the Scotch Members. But the Irish Members had a majority against the Bill. They did not possess complete Sunday closing in Ireland. The five largest cities of that country are not under the Act, and, therefore, the Irish Members gave a majority against the Bill. That was the true feeling of the Government at the time. As a result of Sunday closing in Scotland you can now see one of the worst phases of the character of man which it is possible to witness. If you go into a tramcar in Scotland it is a matter of frequent occurrence to see a man take a flask from his pocket, put it to his lips and consume its contents, and not one person in that tram will pay the slightest attention to that action.

I never saw such a sight in my life.

Neither have I.

If you were to see that action taking place in England there would scarcely be a person in the tram who would not nudge his neighbour or look askance at the man who did it. Personally, I would not like to see that custom brought into play. It is considered disgraceful to be seen drinking on the sly in England, but in Scotland and Ireland, where they have Sunday closing, this is not the case. The working man always recognises that it is a great advantage to have the beer for his dinner drawn fresh, and it is very much better to have it drawn from the bulk. Beer is liquid bread. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have no doubt that the whole House will ridicule that idea, and I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will not call me to order when I say that the great curse of tuberculosis disease in this country, attributed to the consumption of bread made from too pure flour, has been rectified to a great extent by the consumption of the national beverage—beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is an advertisement."] I have read a Blue Book in this House which no other Member of Parliament has read. That may seem very strange, and I feel it my duty to explain the matter. Some time ago a Royal Commission was appointed to discuss the depopulation of Fiji, and a Blue Book was printed dealing with the point I desired to see. I tried to discover it in the House, and I went to the Librarian and asked him for it. He said it could not be found, and there was no such book in existence. I was determined to have it because I knew of its existence, and at last, with the assistance of the librarians, I unearthed this Blue Book, of which only two copies had been printed. I obtained the use of it, and perhaps I may explain to the House that both copies of this report were in the original brown paper and seal in which they had been delivered to the House. In that book I read one of the cleverest letters on this subject written by a man called Pete, who lived in the Island of Fiji, and he referred to what I have just stated, namely, the advantage of beer as a food as against bread. I am an advocate of the use of beer as against spirits. I recognise that the use of beer is undoubtedly good for the people. You, Mr. Speaker, are acquainted with the North of England, and you know the habits of the people living on the border. Their principal food was oatmeal and wheat-meal, cabbage and pease, milk and beer. They were paid in kind and not in money. Their only fault as a race was that they were inbred—the fault of the agriculturists of this country. That food has been taken from them. They are paid in money now, not in kind. They have taken to consuming white flour and meat and exchanged beer for spirits. As a result the borderers, the most wonderful workers of the United Kingdom, where men and women worked like horses, harder than any other race, deteriorated. That is a great point. I am as great a temperance advocate as any man in this room, and I conduct my business on the same principles as Lord Grey's Trust is conducted, and I do not think that any trust can do better than what we do. We have been founded for 50 years, and we have had great experience. Now it comes to this, that the public themselves recognise to a certain extent the advantage of beer as against spirits in regard to fortifying their constitutions, and we have now the consumption of very strong ale, which is increasing in popularity, instead of spirits. But to revert for a moment to another point in connection with this subject. It has been said that the working man is not able to resist the temptation of the open public-house. I may say a word for the working man. I would like anyone to go down to my Constituency and at my invitation to go on to the platform, address my working men, and tell them that they as men have less moral courage than the individual who I went down on my invitation to address them. All I would ask him to do would be to give me notice to get out of the way, because I am quite sure that the working men would resent anyone going and saying that they as a class were less able to resist temptation than anyone in this House. Temperance reformers talk about the number of public-houses being a temptation to working men. If there are two they may pass one, if there are three they may pass two, if there are four they may pass three. Let them say that to working men, and they will see what will be the reply. London has been exempt from Sunday closing because they knew perfectly well it would be impossible to enforce such a law. It is on record that when it was attempted they went into Hyde Park and tore down the palings. Liverpool, Birmingham, and other cities in the country have grown enormously since that day in wealth and population, and it is just possible, as occurred in London, that the same resentment would be experienced in those cities as was shown in those early days. Might is right, certainly, but not in every country. Might is right for the people of England because the laws are good, and because it is agreeable to the people that right should be might. The people are contented because the laws are right. If you suppress the people and take away from them their rights, then I say you must be very careful in these democratic days that they do not show their might. The whole point of the Bill is this —that it is not a fair one to send to the Grand Committee.

We have heard this afternoon that the measure will be transformed in Committee into one altogether of another character, and the Seconder of it does not agree with some parts of its provisions. We have heard from Members on the other side that the Bill does not contain that which they want. Yet you are asking the Grand Committee, already greatly overburdened with work, to practically redraft and convert the measure into an entirely new Bill. I do not think it is fair to any Committee to ask them to do that when the Mover of the Bill himself has failed on so many points, and ask us to give a decision upon a proposal which, if it goes to Grand Committee, must emerge from it in a different form. I think the wisest course for this House is to reject the Bill and, if they desire, they may bring in a measure which will conform more to the views not only of temperance reformers, but also of those who wish for the peace, good will and sobriety of the people.

Question put: "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."

House divided. Ayes, 244; Noes, 59.

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at seven minutes after Five of the clock till Monday next.