From the Home Counties districts, signed by 65,800 electors.

Mr. ARTHUR FELL—Signed by 2,203 electors of the borough of Great Yarmouth.

Mr. W. W. ASHLEY—Numerously signed, from a number of Lancashire towns, including the boroughs of Blackburn, Accrington, Barrow, Chorley, and Preston.

Colonel C. E. WARDE—From the electorate of the county of Kent, signed by 13,958 electors.

moved: "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House."

I make this Motion because the Bill has been entirely altered and remodelled by the Government in Committee, and is therefore quite a different Bill from that to which the House gave its assent on Second Reading. It would not be in order, of course, for me to refer to the merits of the Bill either as it originally stood or as it comes before the House now, but I propose to submit to the House that it is a very serious innovation of the rights and privileges of the House for the Government to avail themselves of the Bill of a private Member when that Bill is sent upstairs to Grand Committee, which represents only an extremely small fraction of the House—to avail themselves of their powers to entirely remodel the Bill and to come here on Report stage with a Bill which is altogether different from the one sent up to the Grand Committee. To begin with, the second Bill is twice as long as the first Bill: it covers three pages, while the first Bill covers only one page and a little tiny piece of another, and, in addition to that, the clauses are entirely and absolutely different from those of the first Bill. The Bill as introduced provided that:—

"All premises where intoxicating liquors are sold shall be closed for the whole of Sunday save that justices might on application for the grant or renewal of a licence permit sale for one hour in the middle of the day and in the evening for not more than two hours (in Metropolitan area three) between 7 and 10."

In the Bill substituted by the Government this clause is altered and provides:—

"That sale on Sundays shall be restricted to three hours (4 in Metropolitan area) to be fixed by the justices in each licensing district. That on the application for the grant of renewal of an on licence the justices may attach thereto a condition of closing for the whole of Sunday or during any hours when sale would otherwise be permitted and further that the justices may by general order declare that all licensed premises in their district shall be closed for the whole of Sunday."

The original Bill expressly exempted Monmouthshire, but the scheme submitted by the Government provides that there shall be complete statutory Sunday Closing in Monmouthshire, to which English county the provisions of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act are to be applied. The original Bill extended the bonâ fide traveller distance to six miles, "or such further distance as the justices may determine in any case of any particular licensed premises." This Bill makes the bonâ fide traveller distance six miles and further allows justices on the grant or renewal of an "on" licence to impose any condition they think fit in respect of "the restriction of the circumstances" under which bonâ fide travellers may be supplied. A default in complying with a condition as to Sunday closing or serving travellers is made (whether there has been a conviction or not) a ground on which the licence may be refused without compensation. No appeal is provided against a general order by the licensing justices closing all the houses in their district during the whole of Sunday.

It is clear that the alterations here are so comprehensive that the Bill in its present form requires the fullest scrutiny on Report. The substituted scheme due to the action of the Government in Committee is based on the proposals as to Sunday Closing contained in the Licensing Bill, 1908, but which were not then considered in detail, while the power given to the justices to decree complete closing by general order goes beyond the proposal of the Licensing Bill, and is due to the acceptance of an Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker). The provisions of the Bill are a grave inter- ference with the convenience of the public and unjust to the trade. They would operate unequally, and produce serious evils by fostering undesirable clubs and shebeens, and by creating border difficulties all over the country owing to differences in the hours of opening authorised. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley will induce his hon. Friends to support my Motion, which I beg to move.

This Bill, in the amended form in which it is now presented to the House, interferes not only with a large industry but also with the rights and privileges of millions of the people of this country, and it is a measure which certainly requires the consideration of a Committee of the whole House. That there is a widespread interest manifested in this Bill is evidenced by the enormous number of petitions presented against it. Even the right hon Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley would not recognise in this Bill his own offspring, and now that the Government have tacked on their own views it certainly ought to receive the consideration of a Committee of the whole House. Hon. Members have a right to examine the details of this measure in the new form in which it is now presented. For these reasons I second the Motion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.

Notwithstanding the persuasive way in which the hon. Baronet has put this matter, I am unable to ask my hon. Friends to support this Motion. I would remind the House that the changes which have been made in the Bill by the Committee have certainly been in the direction of the views of hon. Members opposite. The Bill, as originally introduced, provided that all public-houses should be closed on Sunday, except where the justices decided that they should be open for certain hours. Under the Bill, as it now stands, all public-houses will be open for a limited number of hours, except where the justices decide that it is desirable that they should be closed. That is a very distinct concession—which I com fess I do not very much like—to the views of those who are opposed to this Bill. It has been said that this Bill interferes seriously with a great industry and with the liberties of the people. To whatever extent that might be true of the original Bill, this measure at any rate interferes-less, and therefore if that be a valid object- tion, it is minimised by the changes which have been made. Before this Bill was read a second time the Prime Minister clearly indicated that it was supported by the Government, on the condition that this change was made. The Bill has only been brought into the form in which the Sunday Closing clauses of the Bill of last year were accepted by the House.

It is quite true that the Bill has been altered in the manner described, but that does not meet our objections. I object to this measure because it gives too large powers to the justices, which they may exercise partially and capriciously. This Bill has been altered enormously since it passed the second reading by the clauses which have been introduced by the Under-Secretary to the Home Department. I do not say that the discussion allowed in Committee was not ample; but, in my opinion, an important Bill of this sort ought to be considered by a Committee of the whole House. Within the last 20 minutes I have presented about 15 different petitions from all parts of England in opposition to this measure, which shows what a widespread feeling there is against it. I think it is only just, under the circumstances, that this Bill should be re-committed.

I support the Motion which has been made by the hon. Baronet because it will have the effect, if carried, of killing the Bill. There is not the slightest doubt that this measure, which we are asked to consider on a Friday afternoon, raises questions of the gravest public importance, and if it were submitted to a general vote of the people of England, I have not the slightest doubt as to its fate. For these reasons, I shall support the Motion made by the hon. Baronet opposite.

The Prime Minister made so many adumbrations and foreshadowings with regard to this Bill that I think it is only fair to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of explaining the statements he has made. No doubt the opposition to this Bill is widespread and general. The hon. Member below me has stated that he has presented a large number of petitions against the Bill. That is the experience of many Members on this aide of the House. I believe that there has been a sufficient case made out for the re- committal of the Bill. If the Bill has been fundamentally altered in character since the last opportunity we had of discussing it surely that is a reason for the re-committal of the Bill, and I therefore beg to support the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.

I desire to say one word in support of the Motion of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley has said that the principal effort of the alterations made upstairs is to bring the Bill into coincidence with the Licensing Bill of last year. But the Licensing Bill of last year has been rejected. The Prime Minister told us in the course of the Debate on the Licensing Bill that if that Bill did not pass its objects might be secured step by step, and the hon. Member for the Spen Valley says that is what they are doing with regard to Sunday Closing. But if the objects of this Bill are to be secured step by step the only place where they should be secured is on the floor of this House.

This Bill has been so fundamentally changed that it should be considered as a Government Bill, and should be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. The alterations which it makes are very considerable, and they ought to be dealt with on the floor of this House. It deals with great interests in the country, and it excites great interest in the country, and it ought to be discussed openly in this House. It affects the interests of a large number of people, and the Government would be well advised if they accept the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, a Motion which I shall support.

I am in favour of the Bill, as I was in favour of the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill, and I should like to see this Bill left to the consideration of a Committee of the whole House. If it is, as has been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, satisfactory to the country, then I suppose that the Committee stage will be very short. I have a right to presume that the Committee stage will be very rapid; and, under these circumstances, I cannot understand why the Bill should not come before a Committee of the whole House. What are they ashamed of Why will they not have this matter thrashed out before this House? It often happens that when Bills are discussed upstairs they are rushed through by an overwhelming majority, and the minority get very little consideration for the views which they hold quite as sincerely as the promoters of the Bill hold their views. Let us have this thing thrashed out in the ordinary way. I have been a supporter of this Bill up to the present, but I do not like the idea of forcing it down the throats of my hon. Friends. It would be far better to have a fair and square fight over it in Committee of the whole House, and I therefore appeal to those in charge of the measure to accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).

It has been pointed out that the Bill, as now Amended, practically represents the Sunday Closing Clauses of the Licensing Bill of last year. It must be borne in mind that in the Debates on that Bill in this House we had no opportunity of discussing various special questions with regard to Sunday Closing. Therefore this House has never had a chance of debating this particular Bill and the questions raised by it, and surety it would be much better now to deal with it in the House itself than to be content with what has been done upstairs. On that ground I strongly support the Motion of the hon. Baronet.

There appears to be considerable difference of opinion upon this question, but I think there is one point which requires further consideration, and that is whether Ministers have not used, or rather abused, the procedure of this House in order to convert a private Member's Bill into a Bill of their own, and thus to introduce novel matters which the House has never had a chance of discussing. Undoubtedly this Bill is quite different from the one which was sent upstairs. It often happens that a Bill is so changed in Committee that when it is returned to the House it is realised that the House has had no opportunity of discussing the new matters introduced, and it is therefore recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. Everybody knows that the Report stage is not the most convenient opportunity for thrashing out questions such as these, affecting large classes of the community. I shall vote for the re-committal of the Bill because I think the Government have abused the rules of procedure by taking a private Member's Bill and turning it into a Bill of their own, introducing novel principles which the House has never had an opportunity of discussing.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Baronet, who has just spoken, should have lent the weight of his authority to a Motion of this character, a Motion obviously unreasonable in itself and the deliberate purpose of which is transparent. It is true that the Bill has been considered by a Standing Committee of the House, but what has been the course adopted by the Government in reference to this measure this Session? The Bill originally introduced by the hon. Member for the Keighley Division (Mr. Brigg) was of a much more stringent character than the present Bill is. Early in the Debate on the second reading, and not towards the end, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would regard the Bill with a benevolent eye only if its provisions were brought into conformity with the provisions proposed by the Government and passed by the House of Commons, and forming part of the Licensing Bill of last year. The Debate after that proceeded well and was brought to an end, and no Motion was made by the opponents of the Bill to send it to a Committee of the whole House. That was the time when the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who is seldom chary of making these Motions in respect of private Members' Bills with which he does not agree, should have made the proposal. The Bill, however, went to the Standing Committee, and there the Government, in pursuance of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, proposed Amendments bringing it, except in regard to very small details, in precise conformity with the Sunday Closing provisions of the Licensing Bill of last year. I venture to say if these alterations had not been made hon. Members opposite might have complained, and might have moved to re-commit the Bill; but the Government undertaking having been given effect to. I submit this Motion is unjustified. The hon. Baronet said the Bill was now twice the length of the original measure. That may be true, but it does not follow that it is twice as stringent.

It may be twice as bad.

As a matter of fact, all the alterations introduced into the Bill have been in the nature of modifications, and the chief Amendment which was passed in the Standing Committee was actually agreed to without a Division, hon. Members opposite not even troubling to challenge it on its merits. We have been told that the whole House should have an opportunity of discussing the details of a measure of this kind. That opportunity is afforded it on the Report stage, and I trust we may at once be allowed to proceed with the Debate.

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the absolutely unwarrantable attack made on my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Samuel) must really have missed the point of the remark of my hon. Friend. The objection which he raised, and which I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate if he looks at the matter again, is that this Bill was introduced as a private Member's Bill; that it was an extreme Bill, belonging to a class which the House has been accustomed to, from Members entertaining extreme views, and anxious to bring them under public notice. It is not usual on these occasions to suggest that Bills of that kind should be referred to a Committee of the whole House. Generally these Bills are looked upon as not possessing the slightest chance of becoming law, but when the Government choose to send a private Member's Bill of an extreme nature upstairs, and to get it through without adequate discussion, and when they choose further to convert that wild Bill into a Government measure, then I venture to think we are justified in joining in the protest of the hon. Member for Oxford University when he says it is not a proper way of making use of the procedure of this House. For this reason, that the Bill as now before the House—the Government Bill, instead of being a private Member's extreme Bill, as it was before—that measure has never been discussed in Committee or upon the floor of this House, and it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the House has now an opportunity of discussing it, because nobody knows better than he does that the proper mode of discussing the details of a Government measure is in Committee and not upon Report. You cannot discuss a Bill in detail on the Report stage as you can in Committee. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that this is the time to discuss the Bill, that it is not, but it would be if he consented to the Motion for re-commitment; then we should be in a position to discuss the Bill properly. This measure, however, it seems to me, has not been discussed by the House on any occasion, and it is a difficult and complicated measure to debate. I am not dealing with the merits for one moment, but I do suggest that, if this precedent is adopted, it is one which will very likely be carried out in future, although I do not wish to say a word against those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench. It is a precedent which will very likely be carried out in future, and I wish to protest against its being set, as it is a very inconvenient form of procedure. Once a Government sets a precedent as to procedure I find there is not much to choose between the two Front Benches in attempting to follow a precedent when it is a question of getting their business through. It is a dangerous precedent, and however much you may wish to pass a particular Bill, the means do not justify the end.

I beg to support the Motion of my hon. Friend for this reason: Coming back as a new Member, after having been for some years in the House before, I was very much struck at finding the way in which extremely contentious measures, instead of being discussed on the floor of this House, are now sent upstairs. I venture to think that this procedure is absolutely wrong, and I am quite certain that the people who send us to this House are not in the least aware that highly contentious measures, instead of being discussed here, are debated upstairs. The number of Members of these Standing Committees is 57, of whom 15 are co-opted, and I recollect when we were discussing this Bill upstairs one day there were only 22 people present, and I think the largest number we ever had, except at the final sitting, was 27. I venture to say that in the case of an extremely important and highly contentious Bill like this it is essential that all Members of the House should have an opportunity of saying what they wish to say on it, and this has not been given by the Government. I have in my hands a largely signed Petition from my own Constituency against this Bill, and the people who signed that Petition think that all Members have an opportunity of saying what they wish on any subject, and have no idea that these matters are sent upstairs and are, so to speak, smothered among a small number of Members, with a large majority of those who sit on the Government side of the House. Although this Bill may please my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker) and people like him, there are a great number of people in this House who do not think as he does, and I would venture to remind right hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they consider the question of proportional representation they will find that the Government is very much over-represented in this House at the present time. This is a highly contentious Bill, and I simply mention this matter because I do say in all seriousness, and in any humble way that I can protest, that is not right that measures of this sort should be discussed upstairs instead of being debated on the floor of this House. Hon. Members laugh, but he laughs best who laughs last. The provisions of this measure formed part of the Licensing Bill of last Session, and I cannot understand why if the Government had the support of the country on that measure, they did not take that opportunity of going to the country. I protest against highly contentious measures being sent upstairs to be discussed instead of being discussed in this House, and for this reason I support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

This appears to me to be one of the most remarkable Motions that I have seen moved in my experience in this House. Here is a Bill which was fully discussed on the second reading, and was sent upstairs to a Committee without any opposition. In the Committee, of which I was a member, the hon. Gentlemen who are anxious this morning to send it to a Committee of the whole House, availed themselves very fully of their opportunities of amending, not one clause, but almost every clause, The Government, consistently with the promise which the Prime Minister made at a very early stage of the second reading Debate, put in certain new clauses. When those new clauses were before the Committee they were directly opposed to the opinions which many of us held. Instead of extending the scope of the Bill they consistently limited it, and limited it in a direction of which many of us could not approve. Certainly the limitation was all in favour of the position taken by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, the majority of whom are opposed to total Sunday Closing, and may I call the attention of the House to this fact, that although they were opposed many of them to the Bill when it was before the House, because it went too far, and the Govern- ment amended it in their direction, no sooner had the Government carried out their limiting proposals than the last speaker above the Gangway moved an Amendment to extend the scope of the Bill beyond what it stood when it was introduced by applying its provisions to the working men's clubs of the country. May I also point out that because certain Members who were anxious to get this Bill did not support this proposal they have been pilloried in every Conservative newspaper in the country because they did not support this extension of the scope of the Bill beyond what it was when it was before this House on second reading. It seems that there is going to be an attempt to pursue the tactics of last Friday, which had no other object than to destroy other Bills which hon. Members above the Gangway are opposed to.

On a point of order, is it in order for an hon. Member to accuse other hon. Members of wilful obstruction?

I have seen the thing done, and I have heard the accusation made.

I think when one hon. Member makes 18 speeches in a short Friday sitting, I am fully justified in making the statement that there could have been no other object than preventing some other Bill from being discussed. This is one of the most dilatory Motions I ever heard. It seems to me that the House is completely justified in proceeding with the Report stage of a Bill which has been freely and fully discussed and amended in the Standing Committee without any opposition from hon. Members above the Gangway.

I think experienced Members of the House like the right hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker) will regret the tone of asperity which the hon. Member has introduced. The hon. Member has been a Member of the House for 5½ years, and the occurrence of this morning's Debate is quite unparalleled in his experience. For a good many years prior to 1903 charges of dilatory conduct were made which, perhaps, if the hon. Member had had that experience might have made him modify the terms he has used, and would certainly have led him, if he is a friend of the Bill, to treat the matter with a little less Parliamentary violence—[Cries of "Oh"]—if anyone objects to the phrase I will readily withdraw it—and by using moderate expressions contribute to the promotion of the Bill. The case made by my hon. Friends has not been answered. This is a different Bill from that which left the House. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office twits us with not having moved that the Bill should be kept in Committee of the whole House. Perhaps we ought to have done so, but it does not come well from any promoter of the Bill to attack hon. Members who oppose the measure for having, rightly or wrongly, refrained from taking unnecessary Divisions, especially after the Divisions they forced us to last night.

This Bill, we are told, was introduced as an extreme Bill, that is to say, it put the plea at its maximum, and the fact that during Committee stage some provisions have been materially modified is no answer whatever to our claim that the House of Commons, as such, is entitled to deal with the subject in Committee. Of course, the Bill was introduced by the supporters of the society, which desires, and has desired for 50 years, totally to suppress the liquor trade. Their idea in this Bill was only to suppress it on one day in the seven, while their ultimate idea is to suppress it on every day of the week. Now the Government have made it their Bill, and that is what entitles us to move that it should be re-committed. When the Under-Secretary for the Home Office tells us that he has made it conform to a clause of the Licensing Bill, that does not afford any comfort to my mind at all. The Solicitor-General is frank enough to admit that of all the ill-considered and unworkable clauses in the Licensing Bill there were none more so than the Sunday Closing portion. It was closured very quickly indeed, but we had two hours' Debate on it, and hon. Members were in hopeless confusion as to the right of going into licensed premises at any hour of the night to get refreshments. If really this Bill has been brought into harmony with the clause dealing with Sunday Closing in last year's Bill it is vitally necessary that the House of Commons in Committee should freely debate it. It is impossible for all Members to attend on Grand Committees. Very often only a little over a fourth of the Members find it possible to attend, and on some occasions it is impossible to get a quorum. When you have a Bill so important and far-reaching following on a penal Budget, it is the right of the whole House in Committee to express its views.

I cannot help thinking that those interested in the further progress of this measure will not expect that progress would be more rapid than is consistent with the novelty of these proposals and their importance, and that the case will be very badly served if speeches like those of the Under-Secretary for the Home Office and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are to be made. The sooner the House as a whole recognises that some of these proposals were not in the original Bill, and require, and will receive, most careful and adequate consideration, the less unnecessary heat is likely to be imported into our discussions. The hon. Member below the Gangway is very fond of lecturing us, a rôle which is justified neither by his Parliamentary experience nor by the mildness of his admonitions. He has addressed a number of arguments to the House which appear to be worthy of not very great attention.

The hon. Gentleman said to make 18 speeches in a single sitting was obstruction. The Solicitor-General has made at least 28 in a single sitting. Anyone less obstructive than the hon. and learned Gentleman it would be impossible to imagine. How does the hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. A. Henderson) deal with our arguments? He says there was no proposal on the second reading to take this Bill in Committee of the whole House. The answer to that is very short and simple. Nobody cared then whether the Committee discussion was taken in Committee of the whole House or not so long as we regarded it as the foolish proposal of a private Member which was not likely to make any further Parliamentary progress, and so long as it was not taken up by the Government. What has happened since then? The Government have taken up the Bill, and we are threatened with the prospect that it may be passed into law. How does the hon. Member for Barnard Castle meet that? He says there was a full discussion upstairs on every Amendment brought before the Committee. The answer to that is that many of us who are interested in this subject had no opportunity of discussion at all upstairs. We are not going to surrender our Parliamentary rights because a few of our friends enjoyed the opportunity of discussing it upstairs. Why are we to be precluded from our rights in this House as representing our constituencies with respect to a matter to which they attach importance? The hon. Member made a most astonishing charge against my hon. Friend who sits behind me. He said he actually introduced in Committee upstairs a proposal which would have extended the restrictions of this measure to clubs. The hon. Member seems to think that a highly unreasonable proposal for my hon. Friend to have made. It would not be in order to undertake a discussion on the question of clubs at this stage, but I may be allowed to say that whether my hon. Friend's proposal would have modified the folly of the Bill or not, it would at least have mitigated its dishonesty.

What is this proposal which we are told we are not to be given an opportunity of discussing in Committee? It is a proposal in the first place which affects a very important trade. That of itself is a circumstance which the House may well consider in relation to my hon. Friend's Motion, but apart from that it affects the whole public convenience. It affects the constituents of everyone of us. It affects the, whole question whether the grounds of morality put forward by the supporters of the Bill have any correspondence with the real facts of the case as disclosed by the statistics of the last few years. The only answer made by the Under-Secretary, and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle, and it would be the answer of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir T. Whittaker), is that all the changes made in the Bill upstairs were in the nature of concessions to the Opposition. Speaking entirely from recollection, I am inclined to challenge that statement. I do not for a moment believe that all the changes made are changes in the direction desired by the Opposition. My recollection is not that the Bill when originally introduced proposed that there was to be complete statutory Sunday Closing in Monmouthshire, which is an English county. It has been amended in Committee, so that the provisions of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act shall be applied to that county. Is any hon. Member who is acquainted with Monmouthshire, and who knows the views which are held by the people there, to be prevented from saying now whether or not it is expedient that the Act should be extended to that county? That question was not discussed, as a matter of principle, on the second reading. It would not be strictly in order to go into this question now, but I would say that those who have studied the question know at least that the chief constable of Monmouthshire, an official highly qualified to speak from the police point of view—

I think the hon. Member is going rather too deeply into that matter.

My anticipation was accurate, Sir. I will content myself with pointing out that this is a very important proposal which has never been discussed in the House of Commons. I might also refer to another important point which has not been discussed, namely, the bonâ fide traveller provisions. The change which has been made on that point does not carry out the views of my hon. Friends. What is the Government proposal so far as the bonâ fide traveller is concerned? It is that the justices on the grant of the renewal of an on-licence may impose any condition that they think fit in respect of the circumstances under which bonâ fide travellers may be supplied, and, in addition to that, it is provided that, whether there is a conviction or not, default to comply with the condition is made a ground for refusing the renewal of the licence. The two changes to which I have referred are changes in contradiction of the contentions of my hon. Friends. On these grounds I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would consult the interest of his own Measure if he were to consent to the Motion.

Question put: "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 136.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

brought up the following new Clause, which was read the first time:—

Supply of Intoxicating Liquors in Clubs on Sunday.

(1) No intoxicating liquor shall be supplied or distributed on Sunday in any club registered under the provisions for the registration of clubs where intoxicating liquors are supplied contained in The Licensing Act, 1902, except during the hours during which the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday is permitted under the provisions of this Act in licensed premises in the same licensing district as that in which the premises of the said club are situated, and as regards hours during which intoxicating liquor may only be supplied with a meal in licensed premises subject to those said provisions.

(2) If any intoxicating liquor is supplied or distributed in any registered club in contravention of this section, such supply or distribution shall constitute a ground on which the said club may be struck off the register as if it were a ground mentioned in section 28 of The Licensing Act, 1902, and if any person supplies or obtains or attempts to obtain any intoxicating liquor in a registered club in contravention of the provisions of this section, he shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds.

On a point of order, I desire to ask your ruling with regard to this Amendment. This Amendment purports to bring clubs within the scope of this Bill. The title of the Bill is "A Bill to Prohibit or to Regulate the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday." I submit that the supply or distribution of liquors in clubs does not come within the objects of the Bill at all. It is in no sense a sale. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Newdegate) was advised, I believe, by some very competent lawyer as to his Amendment, which takes the form that no intoxicating liquor shall be supplied or distributed in clubs on Sunday. That fortifies the view which I take. You are dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday, so that dealing with clubs is outside the scope of this Bill. I ought to say that I did raise this question on the Standing Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, who was Chairman of the Committee, thought that the Amendment, which was then proposed by way of Amendment, was in order. But I submit for your ruling that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is not within the scope of the Bill.

The use of the word "sale" in the title of the Bill, as suggested by the Solicitor-General, bears a very narrow and technical meaning, the nicety of which I confess had escaped me. I think that it is too narrow to prevent the Question being raised by the hon. Member as to the sale of liquor in clubs on Sunday, and I am rather fortified in that because I see that during the second reading Debate the question of clubs was discussed, and also owing to the fact that the Chairman of the Standing Committee before whom this Bill was considered also permitted it. The Amendment is on the line, but, on the whole, I think that it is better to give it the benefit of the doubt, and therefore I call on the hon. Member for Tamworth.

I certainly think that this Bill, if it ever becomes a law, will be a dead letter unless this proposal is allowed. There is at present a system of affiliation clubs, under which a person who belongs to one club can get a ticket which will enable him to get a drink in any club he likes, provided that it is affiliated to the one to which he belongs. If that is allowed I cannot conceive that it would be any benefit to tem- perance to shut up public-houses on Sunday, if that is the object of this Bill. I suppose that this Bill is a temperance Bill, and not a penal Bill against the licensed victuallers. I have no wish to speak on behalf of the brewing trade or the liquor trade. I have got nothing in the world to do with it. But it does seem to me a hard thing, just now, when this Budget is being imposed which is going to place such cruel burdens on the liquor trade, that the public-houses should in this extra way be shut up on Sundays, whereas clubs are not to be interfered with. The proposal in the Bill is to reduce the opening of licensed premises by several hours, and to allow the selection of the limited hours of opening to vary in different localities as the magistrates may suggest, and to empower the magistrates in certain cases, if they choose, to close all licensed premises in any locality. What would happen? In any town where the public-houses were closed the people would at once open a club. If people who wish to have drink on Sundays could not get what they want in public-houses they would take care to have places where they could get it. I know a place where the public-house was closed, and the result was that within a short time afterwards that public-house was turned into a club so that it could be used by the people to get drink if they wished to do so without police supervision. It is a very remarkable fact that although the on-licences in this country have been very considerably reduced in numbers during a term of years the number of clubs has gone on increasing very considerably during those years. In the year 1904 there were 103,434 on-licences, in 1905 that number was reduced to 99,277. On the other hand, the clubs had gone on increasing enormously in numbers. In 1887 there were only 1,982 clubs, and in 1904 the number had increased to 6,371, and in 1908 to 7,133. It may be argued that liquor is not sold in all these clubs, but I think that no one will gainsay for a moment that in a great number of clubs in this country liquor is sold to those who want to have it. My point is that it is neither equitable nor just to put restrictions as regards supplying liquor in public-houses on Sunday—a question about which people hold a great variety of opinions—while you make it perfectly possible for some people who would drink at the public-houses if they were open to get drink at clubs.

I turn to the question of the affiliation of clubs. There are central unions of clubs, one of the most influential in point of numbers being the Working Men's Clubs and Institutes Union. The plan is to have a federation of clubs with all their advantages. Amongst the privileges of membership is the system of affiliation, under which a card is issued to a member of one of the clubs which gives him honorary membership of all the clubs in the union. In the evidence before the Licensing Commission in 1897 Mr. Hall, secretary of the Union, gave these figures: In reply to question 16,223 he stated that the Union included some 600 clubs with a membership of 250,000. In 1907 a deputation, which met the Prime Minister, stated that there were 1,200 clubs with 400,000 members. The Association of Conservative Clubs included 1,300 clubs, with 570,000 members. The Federation of Yorkshire Liberal Clubs had 180 clubs, with 36,000 members. The Kent Association of Working Men's Clubs had 39 clubs, with 6,200 members. The Federation of Lancashire Liberal Clubs contained 151 clubs, with 22,000 members. These are figures which I think that the House would do well to bear in mind. In May, 1907, it was found that in 1,138 of the union of clubs, to which I first referred, only 46 were marked as not supplying exciseable drinks. The Act of 1902 contained a clause that a club was to be struck off the register on the following grounds:—That persons who are not members are habitually admitted to the club merely for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquors. Also, persons habitually admitted as members without an interval of at least 48 hours between nomination and admission. But these grounds only related to the case of ordinary members; and it was brought before the present Prime Minister in May, 1907, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that at clubs where exciseable liquors are sold honorary members were admitted on the condition that they had paid the subscriptions of their own particular clubs for the whole time during which they were admitted as honorary members. The union bye-laws admit members of associated clubs as honorary members. This simply means that any person who belongs to any club as long as he had paid his subscription may become an honorary member of any club throughout the country. On Sunday if the public-houses are shut up a man will be able to get drink just in the same way as now.

For my part, I cannot see that this Bill would be otherwise than a dead letter if passed into law. I take it that hon. Members opposite are as keen as I am myself that the Sabbath should be properly observed in this country. I think we all agree that the more rest the people have on the Sabbath the better it is for the country. It was the good old rule in this country that the Sabbath should be observed, and I venture to say that, quite apart from the question of selling drink, if some check were put on the entertainments which are given in clubs on Sundays in many parts of the country, it would be an excellent thing for the community at large. Of course it may be argued that though clubs are open on Sundays it does not necessarily follow that drink is sold to members. I have an interesting paper called "Club Life," which gives all sorts of interesting details about clubs. One which struck me as particularly interesting was with regard to the New Century Club. The paragraph says:— nounced for Sunday morning, at 8.30 sharp, a concert, with the following to contribute: "Bert Wright, Alice Williams, Harry Haggerty, Daisy Barker, Eddie Granton, Art. Evason, George Williams." These sort of entertainments seem to go on all over the country. From my own knowledge of music-halls, and I suppose most of us in this House have at various times been to a music-hall, when we do go we take a drink of some sort. I think even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley if he were to do such a thing would take a lemon-squash. My point is that if you do not tackle this question of the clubs in which entertainments are going on and drink is being provided on Sundays, or if the Government do not promise to tackle it in some future Bill, you will make this Sunday Closing Bill, which you are so anxious to see passed, a dead letter. I am confirmed in the hope that the Government will tackle this question of the clubs, because in the "National Review" of January, 1907, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley, and I venture to quote him again because I look upon him as the High Priest of Temperance in this country, said:— goose is the sauce for the gander. If as regards the licensed victuallers of this country, and as regards the working classes of this country, who are the chief users of public-houses, because I do not suppose many of us here present get drinks in public-houses on Sunday, if they are to be treated in this way of putting great difficulties in their way of getting liquor they have been accustomed to get in times past, then I think the clubs should be tackled in the same way. Otherwise you would have the very worst system of class legislation; you would shut up the working men's club, which is the public-house, and not tackle the club which belong more particularly to other classes. I take it that the fact that you cannot tackle clubs without including such clubs as the Carlton and the National Liberal, is the reason why Members upstairs would not support the Amendment I then brought forward.

Another point is that people who drink in public-houses do so under strict police supervision. If there is any infringement of the rules in public-houses the police come down on the publican, a black mark is put against him, he has to run the gauntlet of Brewster Sessions, and the house may be shut up on account of bad behaviour. There is nothing of the sort in connection with clubs. In the Licensing Bill of last year, which was so justly thrown out in another place, there was a provision making it possible for policemen in plain clothes to visit clubs to see how they were being carried on, but owing to pressure from supporters of the Government that provision had to be done away with as the Bill progressed. ["No."] It was made possible for a policeman to visit a club only after obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. ["No."] I think I am right; at all events hon. Members opposite very much modified their attitude. I have no doubt the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Charles Roberts) would agree with me that if clubs are not carried on in a proper manner there ought to be a more efficient system of inspection. In public-houses no sort of games may be indulged in, but in clubs every sort of game may be played. The hon. Member dissents; but I have no doubt that in his own club he takes a hand at bridge or some other game; but if games were played in a public-house the police would at once be down on the publican. I recollect that at the Licensing Sessions at Birmingham on one occasion objection was taken to air-guns being used in connection with a public-house. Personally, I feel very strongly on this matter. If hon. Members opposite intend to be honest and wish to do anything for the promotion of temperance, they should treat public-houses and clubs in the same way, and they should give the country an opportunity of voicing their feelings on the question before attempting to thrust this Bill quickly through Parliament. As far back as 1893 I was responsible for the introduction of a Clubs Registration Bill. Methods were different in the House of Commons in those days. My Bill passed its second reading without a Division, and instead of being sent to a Grand Committee to be thrust through or otherwise, the then Liberal Whip, Mr. Marjori banks, now Lord Tweedmouth, sent it to a Select Committee. That Committee sat for many days, under the efficient chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and a great deal of evidence was taken as to what went on in clubs, especially in the open-air drinking clubs, which are a feature of Wales, where there is Sunday closing. But the Bill, when it came back to the House, like many another Bill of excellent character which does not excite much enthusiasm, was blocked, and never became law. However, having had the advantage of bringing the matter forward so far back as 1893, I can with all honesty ask the promoters of this Bill to insert the provision which I now beg to move.

I beg to second the proposal, which proceeds on the lines of Amendments put down by myself when the Licensing Bill was m Committee, with a view to restricting the sale or distribution of liquor in clubs to the same hours as in public-houses, not only on Sundays, but on week-days also. I voted for this Amendment upstairs, and I shall vote for it to-day. I would appeal to the promoters of the Bill to accept the Amendment, and to the Government to approve of it, because it would be a tremendous reform. Clubs are open for drinking not only 24 hours in the day, but on seven days a week, and this Amendment affords an opportunity at any rate of restricting those facilities on the Sabbath.

Question proposed: "That the clause be read a second time."

Those of us who were en the Committee upstairs will understand the real inwardness of this Amendment, and I am very sorry that my hon. Friend (Mr. Clough) should have fallen headlong into so palpable a trap. When the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) moved this Amendment upstairs, I asked him whether, if it were accepted, he would vote for the Bill, and he answered "No." He opposes the Bill; ho wishes to kill the Bill; and this is the second tactical step taken to-day with that object. The first was the Motion on which we spent an hour at the commencement of the sitting; the second is to introduce into the Bill a clause which he knows very well would kill the measure, and that is the only object in moving it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in imputing motives to other people?

I do not know that it is a wicked motive to kill a Bill. In some circumstances it is a very proper motive.

The hon. Gentleman does not repudiate the motive that his object is to kill the Bill. He is against the Bill. If we include this Amendment he will still vote against the Bill. The hon. Member has read some descriptions of what takes place in clubs. He has uttered something like a diatribe against clubs. He has told us what takes place in some of them. I agree with very much of what he said in this respect. But I noticed this, that when the Act of 1902 was being discussed as a Bill in this House that the Conservative party, who were then in power, did not apply to clubs the hours of closing that they applied to public-houses. Why did they not? Why did not some of the hon. Members opposite move that the hours of public-houses should apply to clubs? They know they are not prepared to put down the Sunday sale of intoxicating liquors. They are not prepared to close the clubs on Sunday. The real position is this: This is a private Member's Bill. The difficulty of carrying such a Bill in this House is very great. Except by limiting it to one particular topic there is very little chance of getting it through. To overload a Bill by contentious matters like this is the way to kill the Bill. That is the real object of this Amendment. We temperance people are frequently twitted with not being willing to take what we can get, and also that we are always asking far too much. Now when we are wishing to go step by step we are attacked because we do not include more in our Bill.

What is the real position? The Leader of the Opposition, when discussing the Licensing Bill of last year, laid it down very strongly indeed that you ought not to interfere with these clubs or put further restriction upon them. He urged that if you do not put further restrictions upon clubs you ought not to restrict public-houses. Consequently when you were not restricting public-houses you ought not to restrict clubs. Hon. Members opposite want to prevent us restricting public-houses by tacking the clubs on them. We are told that clubs are increasing. That is quite true. I strongly desire clubs to be dealt with. But it does not follow that we should have everything included in a particular Bill, especially when by doing it you would kill the Bill. It would not have been easy, for instance, for a private Member to introduce last year's Licensing Bill. Yet we approved of the provisions of that Bill. We are now attempting to get some of them. Some of its provisions would have limited the clubs very consider ably. What did we find in the discussions in Committee? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite at times complained that that Bill did not go far enough in the direction of clubs. Then they opposed every attempt made by us and others to extend these restrictions. It is a purely captious opposition. It is quite true that clubs have increased in number. It is also a fact that the statistics with regard to them are a little misleading, because the original statistics were not so complete as the later ones. There is not anything like the real increase in clubs which appear in the figures. Clubs do not increase at the same rate that public-houses diminish. The establishment of clubs does not depend upon the suppression of public-houses. There is practically no connection between the two. It certainly does not depend upon the question of Sunday Closing.

In Wales, where we have total Sunday Closing, there are 13 clubs to every 100,000 of the population. In Scotland, where we have total Sunday Closing, there are 15 clubs to every 100,000 of the population. In England, where we have a sort of partial Sunday Closing, there are 21 clubs to every 100,000 of the population, showing that the clubs are fewest where there is Sunday Closing. Further, I have a very interesting comparison. In Wales and Monmouthshire there are two towns, Newport and Cardiff. In Newport there is no Sunday Closing. In Cardiff there is Sunday Closing. In Newport—without Sunday Closing—there are twice as many clubs in proportion to the population as there are in Cardiff with Sunday Closing. This clearly proves that the Sunday closing of public-houses does not tend to increase clubs. There are not most clubs where there is Sunday Closing. The fact that the two questions are separate is proved by the figures, and, as a matter of fact, it is so. If you run through the statistics of the clubs in our large towns you will find that they do not harmonise with the statistics of public-houses. There is no real connection between the two.

What is the date of those figures?

The last Return. We would like to deal with the clubs, but we cannot deal with them in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is not time. That is why you have spent so much time over this discussion. You will not help the Bill to pass if we accept this clause. ["Hear, hear."] Yes as opponents, as enemies, of this Bill, you move the Amendment to kill it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the acceptance of the Amendment would kill the Bill?

Because of the time it would take for the discussion. It is purely a question of time. If you increase the size and scope of a contentious measure you render it absolutely impossible to get it through. I hope our hon. Friends who want to see this Bill carried will resist the inclusion of this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman, in supporting this Bill, is compelled to make a speech which is directly and demonstrably opposed to every view which he has ever expressed on this subject in the House or outside of it, and that is inconsistent with the whole of the principles upon which, as a social reformer, he has hitherto based himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that the real reason of this Amendment is a trap on the part of the Opposition. He is, I think, still of that opinion. What does that mean? That I and my hon. Friends are raising this question of clubs in order that we may defeat the present proposals before the House. What is the real fact? We are raising this question of clubs not so much to destroy these proposals as to demonstrate in the clearest possible manner that they are neither honest nor practicable proposals. That is a very different proposition. The reason I make that statement in that form is that the position we take up is this: that you are going to deal with intemperance by restricting the facilities for obtaining drink on Sundays. Our comment on that is that your proposals are futile unless you are going to restrict the sale of drink also in clubs; and it is no answer to say there is no time. If there is no time, do not bring forward partial proposals which are going to inflict great pecuniary hardships upon individuals. Postpone them if they are proposals that have no thing good to recommend them until there is a leisured House of Commons to consider them adequately. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked—and this was a very curious question—why did not the Conservative party insist on the same hours of closing for clubs as they did for public-houses? The answer is extremely short and simple. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill which was introduced then did not pretend to deal with the closing of public-houses; it purported to be a Bill to deal with the reduction of licensed premises upon a new principle—

No; it was the Act of 1902 I was referring to.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Licensing Act of 1904. The right hon. Gentleman made a statement to the effect that his party does not support the sale of drink in clubs. I do not know whether the light hon. Gentleman seriously repeats as his reasoned conviction that his party does not support the sale of drink in clubs. He must know that there is hardly a Metropolitan Member that does not largely owe his presence in this House to the work of the clubs in his Constituency in which drink is sold. It would really be a work of supererogation to go through the list. I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that a reformer with whom he frequently finds himself associated, the present Secretary to the Admiralty, has defended it in the clearest possible language. His attention was called to a music-hall entertainment going on on a Sunday by his loyal supporters, who were able to slake their thirst at all hours of the day and night without making any adequate contribution to the Revenue; and how did he meet this when his attention was called to it? He said the working classes lead a drab and dreary life. The contention of one of the right hon. Gentleman's Leaders was that it was necessary that these facilities should continue in Liberal clubs because the working classes led a drab and dreary existence. But you are going to prevent them having these facilities in public-houses. I venture to say that such a monument of inconsistency and absurdity has never before been presented to the House. Now there is a point of real substance in this. The House must consider seriously whether or not the growth of clubs is of such a character, and the growth of the membership in clubs is of such a nature, as to make this suggested reformation of general application. The right hon. Gentleman made the remark that clubs did not take the place of public-houses, and he attempted to support that by quoting some figures. Perhaps I may reply to the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as a Bill promoter, by a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a temperance reformer. What he said upon this very point, then, was: It would be useless to reduce the number of public-houses if at the same time clubs are allowed to spring up in all directions. Why will it be useless if there is no connection between the two?

I do not think the hon. and learned Member has quoted anything that affects my opinion. I never said clubs would spring up because public-houses were reduced—

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's observation led him to this valuable conclusion: that when public-houses are suppressed clubs do, as a coincidence, spring up, but that there is no connection? If that is not what the right hon. Gentleman means, it would be very interesting to know what he meant when he said, as a temperance reformer, it would be useless to reduce the number of public-houses if clubs are allowed to spring up in all directions.

I quite sustain that view now, and the Licensing Bill of last year, which provided for the reduction of the number of public-houses, contained provisions also for restricting the increase of clubs.

Then I must only place the right hon. Gentleman on the other horn of his dilemma. If that proposition is true, why did he say in his speech a few moments ago, and give statistics to demonstrate it, that clubs did not take the place of public-houses?

I did not say that.

I took down the right hon. Gentleman's words, and the Official Report to-morrow will show whether I am right or wrong. If he did not say that why did he take up the time of the House with statistics that had no relevance to anything he was discussing? It is perfectly clear the reason the right hon. Gentleman quoted the statistics was to demonstrate that there was no connection. Let me give some significant facts with, which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deal. Prior to 1903 clubs were not registered, and the statistics up to that date were therefore unreliable, but the Royal Commission on Licensing Laws found that in the year 1896 the number of clubs in England and Wales in which intoxicants were supplied was 3,655, as compared with 1,982 in 1887, so that clubs had grown in 10 years from 1,982 to 3,655. Now let the House mark the further, growth. In 1903 the total number registered was 6,371; by 1904 the number had increased to 6,468, and in 1905 it rose still further to 6,554. No one will dispute—and, of course, it is the case of the right hon. Gentlemen, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—that this increase is progressive and alarming. It has not ceased, and is not going to cease. If you consider the question, not so much in relation to the number of clubs as in relation to the individual towns, the increase is even more striking. In 1906 Bradford had 161 clubs, with 44,912 members. I have not the slightest doubt the Liberal Members for Bradford are prepared to-close the public-houses in Bradford, while their 44,000 supporters, or whatever proportion of them belong to the clubs, are enjoying the fullest facilities for alcoholic requirements. We are told we are trying to kill the Bill because we propose that these inequalities should be reduced. In Leeds there are 101 clubs with 27,150 members. Yorkshire is almost solidly in favour of this Bill. I am not surprised the amount of money spent in its clubs must have protection. In temperance Glamorganshire there are 112 clubs with 25,000 members; in Huddersfield, 81 clubs with 20,000 members; Halifax borough, 50 clubs, with 14,471 members; Halifax (West Riding area), 40 clubs, with 5,167 members; Tod-morden district, 32 clubs, with 2,808 members; York, 29 clubs, with 2,196 members; Barnsley, 12 clubs, with 2,196 members. I make this observation on those figures which cannot be lightly dismissed, that not only temperance reformers, but those whose duty it is to administer the licensing laws are unanimously of opinion that the cause of the growth in the number of clubs is the failure to exercise effective control over their multiplication, and they agree that that is one of the most potent reasons for the increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness. Let me quote to the House an observation made by the chairman of the Durham Brewster Sessions in 1907. He said:—

"The magistrates had no control over clubs. The membership, however, was increasing to an alarming degree. The total membership of the clubs in that division was now l,302, an increase of over 2,000 during the year. At Halifax an increase of over 1,500 was reported in the membership of the clubs, but a decline (owing to amalgamation) of one in the number of clubs."

This shows that whether the total number of clubs has decreased or not under the operation of the system of the affiliation of clubs the members of clubs in one town can enjoy the same facilities in another town on Sunday. You may close licensed premises in London on Sunday, but the thirsty Yorkshireman can readily find a club where he can drink at all hours of the day. What has been the effect of this upon temperance? The Chief Constable of Manchester (Mr. Peacock), a very experienced observer of the causes of intemperance, made an observation to which I desire to call the attention of the House. He said:—

"He knew from practical experience that clubs were really the cause of a large number of the cases of drunkenness. Last year, in Manchester alone, between the hours of midnight and six o'clock in the morning, 1,375 persons were arrested for drunkenness. The publicans of Manchester were not to blame for it. The people must have obtained the drink at clubs or at private houses, and he did not think there was much drinking done at private houses after twelve o'clock at night. In the case of the last club he had had raided in Manchester, any female could be a member for 2d. a week, and any man for 3d. a week. There were three dances a week, and one of them was held on Sunday afternoon. It was useless putting further restrictions on the publicans if the clubs were left free."

That is the observation made by the Chief Constable of Manchester, and that is precisely the observation we make today. That is our position in regard to this Bill. We say that it is useless to put further restrictions on publicans if the clubs are left free. I trust I have now made clear the reasons for the attitude we take up. I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman saying that I am desirous of killing the Bill. I am desirous of killing any measure which is a bad one, and which places an injurious restraint upon individual liberty which is not shown to be necessary by any increase in drunkenness; on the contrary, it is shown that every year and decade the statistics of drunkenness show better results. The way we are attempting to kill the Bill is by showing how totally illogical and unworkable it is unless you at the same time deal with clubs, which are not subject to adequate control. Clubs can have theatrical entertainments, which holders of licences cannot have; they can have games of chance, and can be kept open all night and day without making any adequate contribution to the Revenue. Under the present system clubs are growing almost as fast as public-houses are diminishing. If I am right in this, is it not clear that the measure before us is one which cannot be justified by any improvement which is likely to follow if it become law? Neither is it justified by the desperate attempt of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and his Friends, undeterred by their failure of last year, and the notorious fact that their attempt to injure their political opponents did not meet with the support they expected, are now trying by a flank attack to achieve that which they have repeatedly failed to achieve by a frontal attack.

I wish to make my own position clear in regard to this measure, because I have the misfortune to differ from most of those with whom I usually act. I am ready to admit that in the arguments which have been so picturesquely put before the House there is a great deal of force. I have always said that it was right to restrict the hours which a public-house should be open on Sunday. I take this attitude not merely on the grounds of the better observance of Sunday, which are large and important grounds, but very largely because I am in favour of giving to as many of the working classes of the community as possible as much rest as can be properly secured for them on Sunday. Unless you diminish very considerably the hours of opening of public-houses you entail upon those employed in licensed premises a very serious and unnecessary hardship in the way of the diminution of that rest on Sunday which we all value so much. I support this Bill on those grounds.

The question now is whether this clause should be added to the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for the Walton Divi- sion (Mr. F. E. Smith) frankly admitted that he wanted to kill the Bill, and that he was an enemy of the Bill, and to accomplish this he adopts every form of Parliamentary procedure which suggests itself to his well-stored mind. I am a supporter of the Bill, and I take the opposite view. My hon. and learned Friend has urged upon the House the necessity of dealing with clubs. I agree with him, and I have always said we should deal with clubs. The question is can you do so in this Bill? [An OPPOSITION MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am not going to criticise the language of this new clause, but I think the hon. Member who moved it will find that it will do a great deal more than he intends, because he not only deals with the sale of liquor, but with its supply and distribution. I am sure that will involve a great deal more interference with liberty than he is prepared to support. I have always acted on the principle that when you cannot get all you want you had better get what you can, just as on a former occasion I protested against hon. Gentlemen opposite being so unreasonable as not to take partial Sunday Closing when it was offered. For the same reason I urge the House now to take the partial Sunday Closing provided in this Bill, and not trouble for the moment about a provision dealing with clubs. When the question of clubs does come before the House I hope we shall find my hon. Friend the Member for the Walton Division strongly supporting provisions dealing with them. No doubt it is desirable that we should regulate clubs, but that is a very difficult question to deal with. Although I am a supporter of the Bill I am quite certain that it cannot be dealt with in the manner which is proposed.

The right hon. Gentleman has been very many years in this House. He has had a long Parliamentary career, and we are all sorry that it is about to be brought to a close; As a man of vast Parliamentary experience, it must be clear to him that the adoption of this clause would make it impossible for this Bill to be passed during the present Session. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am asked why. I will tell the Committee why. I am not going into the question of the desirability or otherwise of dealing with clubs That is a very large question. Personally, I am in favour of the proposal, but the question is whether you are going the right way to do what you intend by pressing this proposal. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford, on the Irish Bill, proposed an Amendment to the effect that all conditions which applied to public-houses should apply to clubs, but when the time came the Amendment was not reached at all. The hon. Member said that this Bill is neither honest nor practicable. It is both honest and practicable. I say that this Amendment is not practicable and is not honest. It is not honest to deal with clubs in the way that has been adopted, but I suppose it is honest for you to desire to kill the Bill. I have been asked why the adoption of this proposal will kill the Bill. It will kill the Bill for this reason, that everybody knows the Bill has no chance of passing unless the Government give it facilities for passing, which they cannot do. This clause would have to be amended, and days and days would be occupied in the process. There is nothing in the clause before the House which deals with police regulations or the inspection of clubs. To deal with clubs honestly it would be necessary to enlarge this Bill. For that we must have many Parliamentary days; but there will be very little chance of giving facilities for the Bill. If we are going to deal with this question at all, let us have a complete measure. [A laugh.] Hon. Members have either misunderstood me or are pretending to do so. What I said was that if we are going to deal with this question at all—I am not referring to the question of Sunday Closing merely; I refer to the question of clubs—then let us have a complete measure. Will some hon. Member opposite devote some of his talent to drafting a measure dealing with clubs not merely on Sunday, but on every other day of the week. I can assure him if he will bring in some such measure he will have my personal support, and I think it would be possible to get it through the House without much discussion. May I remind the hon. Member that when Sunday Closing Bills affecting other parts of the United Kingdom have been brought forward they have not been accompanied by provisions dealing with clubs. We have had Sunday Closing Bills for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and in all cases they have dealt simply with licensed houses. Surely this House cannot think of dealing piecemeal with such a question as the regulation of clubs. I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of any proposed measure with regard to clubs. They do not arise on the Bill now before the House; but what I would urge for the consideration of hon. Members is that this is not the time or place, speaking from a Parliamentary point of view, to raise this question. It is impossible to deal with it now, and I do urge upon all those who have the interests of this Bill at heart to join us in defeating an attempt which has been made openly by hon. Members on the other side of the House, on the pretext of being temperance reformers, to defeat a measure which I think it would be in the interests of the community to pass into law this year.

What does this extraordinary speech come to? We are dealing here with the question of Sunday Closing, and because an Amendment is brought forward to the effect that the Sunday Closing which it is proposed to apply to public-houses shall also extend to clubs, the hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that that cannot be effected without dealing with all the different questions which arise in regard to clubs on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and the other week-days. He told us that if this clause was passed it would necessitate the introduction of a large number of other clauses. But what other clauses can be necessary?

Will there not be any necessity for police inspection?

Really when the Solicitor-General is driven to give such an answer as that he must be in pretty hard straits. Police inspection has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The provision of this Amendment is simply that clubs shall be closed, so far as the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned, during the same hours as public-houses, and that if they are found to be open the proprietors shall be liable to certain penalties.

Does not the hon. and learned Member think some provision is necessary for the inspection of these places? That is all I mean.

I certainly do not think that anything of the kind is necessary. All the House is asked to do is simply to provide that the clubs shall be closed at certain times, and if an offence is committed after such a provision has been enacted it can be proved and the offender can be fined.

Who is going to prove it?

There are lots of ways of doing that without police inspection, but I do not think I need enter into that. This section simply extends the law as to the closing of public-houses for the sale of intoxicating liquors, to clubs. That surely requires no elaborate machinery. There can be no difficulty at all about it. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, "If you pass this clause you will kill the Bill." Why? During the earlier discussions on this Bill I tried to maintain an impartial attitude. I am afraid I have found it difficult to do so during the more recent developments. Why should the insertion of this clause kill this Bill? Nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is possible either to take up popular temperance reform coupled with politics or to take up genuine temperance reform uncoupled with politics. The latter course is very unpopular. I leave the country to judge which class of reform hon. Members opposite are advocating. Are they carrying out what the Solicitor-General has described as a crusade against all public-houses which are alleged to be Tory committee rooms? That is a popular form of temperance reform, because you get the political vote behind it, but if you go in for genuine temperance reform, that is a very different matter. Genuine temperance reform would kill this Bill because it is not a temperance Bill, and nobody knows that better than the Solicitor-General himself.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is his idea of genuine temperance reform?

Perhaps the hon. Member himself will tell us?

No; I want to get at the idea of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Redmond) is not usually so anxious to get my views. I wonder he is not able to discover for himself the difference between the two kinds of temperance reform. I should have thought that with his great knowledge of politics he would have had a very good idea of the difference between political temperance reform and genuine temperance reform. It must be fairly obvious that a person who preaches temperance reform does so without desiring to advocate political views. The man who deals with temperance, irrespective of his political prospects in any way, is a genuine Temperance Reformer. That I am sure the hon. and learned Gen- tleman will appreciate fully, unless perhaps he is taking a cynical view, and says, there is no such thing as a genuine Temperance Reformer. Of course, however, I am not going to argue the question from a cynical point of view, but the man I have described would be a genuine Temperance Reformer, and does exist, although the hon. Member may doubt it. To give a fair example, if the Government were to accept this clause of my hon. Friend—

If the clubs clause were inserted would you and your party vote for the Bill?

I would, certainly, and if it is accepted by the Government I would do so at once. The hon. Member for Clare is very disappointed that this Bill does not apply to Ireland.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is referring to me. All I say is that I came down here especially to vote for this Bill applying to England, because long experience has shown that a similar Bill has been successful in Ireland.

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give an example of a genuine Temperance Reformer, if he will move an Amendment and apply this Bill to the whole of Ireland, I will support it. I do not say, however, that this is a genuine temperance reform, but I say it would be a very unpopular measure. But let us deal with the proposal before the House. Is it a question of temperance or of politics? Let us look at the unfair competition which the publican has to deal with in some cases from clubs, not badly conducted clubs, but genuine, well-conducted clubs which do exist, and with which one is familiar in London at the present time. I gave an instance of one last year—a well-conducted London club, affiliated with 1,200 other clubs, no doubt equally well conducted in other parts of the Metropolis and elsewhere. I am not dealing now with the question of whether it is desirable or not to prevent the working man in England from enjoying refreshments on Sunday; we know that our view differs from that of hon. Members on that point, but be that as it may, you have clubs opened all through the day, and late into the night on Sunday. In the case of a particular club the purchases of intoxicating drink, including minerals, were in round figures £4,000, and they sell them with a proper profit at £6,000. This is typical of a well-conducted club. The subscriptions are very small, and on Sunday morning there is an entertainment presented by first-class talent from the music-halls, admission to which is given upon a very inadequate payment. People who go to that entertainment have something for the good of the house, and they obtain for sixpence a small bottle of whisky, and take it away with them. I am quite aware that that is not a sale except in a colloquial sense. I saw specimens of the bottle brought out by a firm of whisky distillers, and they were called club bottles of whisky, and had a corkscrew adapted to them by a very ingenious process. The club is also open on the Sunday afternoon, and again in the evening, and the proceedings are carried on till one o'clock in the morning. Then, as to the question of Sunday labour, I may mention in the case of a vacancy for a caretaker that the people who applied for that position, small though it was, were prepared to take very much less wages than they were receiving from these well-conducted clubs where the work on Saturday and Sunday was exceedingly severe. The work on Sunday commenced early in the morning, went through the whole of the day, and the club was not closed till one or two in the morning, and then there was washing-up to do. When, therefore, you hear a great deal about the saving of Sunday labour by the closing of public-houses in London and elsewhere, that labour is carried on to four, five, or six times the extent in workmen's clubs, from early in the morning till late at night, or early the next morning, while public-houses are only open for a comparatively few hours during Sunday.

This Bill, of course, naturally causes considerable inconvenience to a large number of people, and when you come to an Amendment which brings that inconvenience home to the political supporters of hon. Gentlemen and to hon. Gentlemen themselves, that is where the strain of temperance reform comes in. It is easy enough to put other people to inconvenience if it does not inconvenience yourself in the least. As a matter of fact, this measure might have caused a certain amount of inconvenience twenty-five years ago to those who did not belong to clubs, as one does now. If we are to have this temperance reform at all it ought to apply to everyone, and not only to those unfortunate men who do not belong to clubs.

I support the new clause, and I desire to dissociate myself entirely from party arguments. I am utterly indifferent whether the support of one man out of 670 happens to be cheered by those who are technically called the Opposition or by those whose business it is to advocate whatever becomes an official measure, whether they agree with it or not. I disagree with the Bill in its spirit and its entirety as much as do at least nine Englishmen out of ten. I do not think there has been a better example, and we have had many, of the way in which a nominally representative assembly can drift away from public opinion than this particular measure. It is a measure which would have been regarded at almost any other period than this generation as one which would have no chance of becoming law. The reason why clubs should be included under the same restriction as public-houses is to me two-fold. In the first place, if we make clubs follow the same stringent rules as public-houses we at once put an inconvenience upon the great majority of the wealthy men who compose this House. Were our ordinary daily—or, in this case, weekly—habits interfered with one tithe as much as the habits of English workmen are interfered with, the Bill would not have the remotest chance of becoming law. I will take the opinion of those who represent the interests of the working classes on these technicalities in the matter of artisan labour which they must necessarily know better than a professional man can possibly know, but when they profess to speak of the ordinary Englishman earning from £;1 to £2 a week as a strange being whom we do not know, and have never met, I beg to demur. I claim to know this country North, South, East, and West. I have seen men before the mast, and have ploughed with them, and I think I know the ordinary Englishman who works with his hands pretty well as well as anyone in this House, and if he knew that such a proposition as this was before the House it would be even more unpopular than the unfortunate Licensing Bill.

The second reason why I would include clubs is that not only by doing so should we show that we are willing to put ourselves to inconvenience as well as others; but we should be striking at a thing very important to many of us—caucuses. Most caucuses on both sides of the House are connected with one or more registered clubs of this sort in which liquor is sold. That is the second reason why clubs are not touched. All the other arguments I be- lieve to be mere advocacy. Advocacy may be necessary in courts of justice, but it is. exceedingly dangerous in a representative Assembly. The greater their independence of judgment the better for the people who send their representatives there. I thoroughly recognise that what the Solicitor-General has said is true. If it were passed the clause would seriously endanger or perhaps kill the Bill. I should not be sorry for that, but I am not supporting it on that account, but because it is an extreme opinion, to which the House is unused. If you are to interfere with the ordinary domestic habits of the English people you must let the pressure be felt by the class to which the vast majority of the House belongs, and prevent the eminent literary men who belong to the Athenaeum and the members of the Cobden, Reform, and other clubs making use of them on Sunday.

The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rawlinson) said this Bill does not refer to Ireland. Of course it does not. We have already in Ireland a Bill practically the same as this.

No.

What is the difference?

The Irish Act does not apply ail over Ireland. Five large towns are excluded.

The horn and learned Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that five towns in Ireland are exempted from the general provisions of the Sunday Closing Act. But, practically speaking, the Act does apply to the whole country. Those of us who have had experience of the general working of the Act would not object at all to the curtailment of the sale of liquor in those towns which are exempted to some extent. I merely rose for the purpose, as Irish Members have practically been challenged in this matter, of saying that our experience in Ireland has been such in regard to Sunday Closing generally that I doubt whether it would be possible to get, out of the 103 Members in this House, representing all shades of politics, even four who would express an opinion contrary to the desirability of Sunday Closing in Ireland. This is shown very clearly by what occurred quite recently. The Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland was passed, I think, in 1878. It was passed for a certain period, and it was continued from year to year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. But a few years ago, so thoroughly satisfied was everybody in Ireland, Unionist as well as Nationalist, with the working of Sunday Closing that the Bill was made a permanent enactment, to the great satisfaction of the vast majority of the people, and practically the whole of the representatives of Ireland in this House. That being so, I think it is a very good argument why I should come here and vote for this Bill for England, because, after all, if it is successful in Ireland the chances are that it would be equally successful in this country. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused me of being a cynic. Well, strange to say, although I have been 26 years in this House, I am not a cynic. I think that period in this House is enough to make anything of anybody. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, without intending to be discourteous to him, but really in a spirit of genuine curiosity, what he and his Friends mean when they speak about genuine temperance reform? Just fancy the Debates in this House for the last 25 years about temperance! Every Bill of this kind has always been described by hon. Gentlemen of the party above the Gangway as not really temperance reform, though genuine reform was a thing they were always most anxious to support. I have been for 25 years diligently and earnestly endeavouring to understand what hon. Gentlemen really mean when they talk of genuine temperance reform. I have never seen any Bill introduced into this House by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway which could be really, honestly, and impartially called temperance reform.

Was not the Act for Sunday Closing in Ireland passed by the Conservative party?

The hon. Gentleman asks me who passed the Sunday Closing Act for Ireland? I tell him that it was passed by the strong feeling which was exhibited in this House by the Irish representatives, the leader of whom at the time was the late O'Connor Don, the Member for Roscommon. As the hon. Member has asked this question, I may mention, for I am proud of the recollection, that it was largely passed through the instrumentality and help of my own father, who was then Member for Wexford in this House. It is nonsense for the Tory party to say that they passed the Act. It was passed because of the good sense of the Irish people, who asked for it, and got it.

The hon. Member is wandering from the point.

I quite recognise that. But I am unused to being interrupted. One would think that the hon. Member (Mr. Lonsdale) was saying that Sunday Closing for Ireland was not a good thing, but I would have expected that on this Bill he would be in the Lobby with me. The fact is that whenever a measure of this kind is brought forward in the interest of temperance we are told that it is not genuine temperance reform. Let hon. Gentlemen themselves introduce a measure of a really genuine character and they will be thanked by all the Gentlemen opposite who support this Bill. On the contrary, if they do want measures of this kind, let them come out and oppose them in a straightforward way and not on a side issue. They ask why clubs are not included. I think clubs ought to be dealt with, and the first club I would deal with would be the Carlton. The next club I would deal with would be the National Liberal. Everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated what is perfectly true when he said that there are several ways of killing a Bill in this House. The best way is to overload it. Everybody knows that this talk about clubs is not dictated by a genuine anxiety to deal with that part of the question, but is simply indulged in in order to kill this Bill. I will vote for the Bill for the simple reason that a similar measure has been successful in Ireland.

I wish to say how deeply I resent the imputation made in more than one part of the speech of the Solicitor-General that we were not honest in the way we on this side of the House were treating the measure. We believe the measure has not the support of the country, and that accounts for our opposition to it. What we are discussing now is a new clause, the object of which is to apply similar regulations to clubs as are to be applied to public-houses. In other words, we say that you should act on the old adage, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." We maintain that if the public-houses are to be closed partly or wholly on Sunday it is also necessary to close clubs during the same hours. The Solicitor-General says that if we press this clause we will kill the Bill. I do not think we will regret if we kill the Bill. I do not think anyone will shed a tear if it is lost. On the contrary, I feel certain that the majority will be extremely glad when it has got its quietus. The speech of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Belloc) was alone sufficient to kill the Bill. He pointed out very properly that the Government are attempting to force the Bill through the House in opposition to the will of the people. There cannot be a shadow of doubt about that. Why are the people hostile to a Bill of this description? It is because they are absolutely sick of the grandmotherly and puritanical legislation of which we have received so much from this Government and which we are generally occupied on Friday afternoon in attempting to pass. It is impossible, logically, to prove that you can restrict public-houses if you leave clubs open. Clubs have enormously increased. The increase is in direct ratio to the restrictions on the liberty of the subject. The more you restrict public-houses and the liberty of the subject, the more will public-houses increase. Naturally, if you close public-houses entirely—and this is a Bill to prohibit the supply of intoxicating liquors on Sunday—then you drive the people to the clubs. If temperance reformers are really serious in their attempt to make people more sober, it stands to reason that there is no use in closing one avenue if you leave an even wider avenue open. If hon. Members are really anxious to stop drinking on Sunday, there is no other course open than to support this clause. Whether it kills the Bill or not does not matter. The Solicitor-General asked—Why introduce this clause and not a complete Bill? It is not our place to Introduce a complete Bill. The Government have taken charge of this Bill. Let them introduce a complete Bill. He says that it will take some time to discuss. They find time in this House to discuss impossible measures. We are occupying a great deal of time at present in discussing a measure which is impossible when we might be much more profitably occupied in discussing a measure such as the Solicitor-General wishes if they introduced it. But they are not likely to introduce it because they know very well that it would interfere with the liberty of clubs, and they would have an enormous number of their own supporters against them. They know perfectly well what is going on in these clubs. Tomorrow night—in many clubs not a hundred miles from London—there will be rehearsals of dramatic performances to take place in Liberal clubs on Sunday night. The Government—not for the first time—is in a difficulty. They are placed in a great difficulty by this clause. I will listen with the very greatest interest to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office will give to this particular clause. Meantime, the clause is one that demands the careful consideration of this House, and I sincerely hope that before we conclude the Debate on this particular Motion, we will have a clear and definite statement from the Government as to what their opinions are with regard to passing this Bill with the clause relating to clubs or passing it without that clause.

rose in his place, claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 57.

Question put, "That the clause be now read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 167.

The proposed clauses in the name of the hon. Members for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) and for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) should come as Amendments to section 3 of clause 1.

CLAUSE 1.—Prohibition or regulation of sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday

(1)After the fifth, day of April, nineteen hundred and ten, all premises in which in toxicating liquors are sold or exposed for sale shall be, notwithstanding any thing contained in any Act of Parliament, closed for the whole of Sunday:—

( a ) if the premises are situate in the Metropolitan district for such time as the justices may determine between the hours of seven and ten o'clock; and

( b ) if the premises are situate elsewhere than in the Metropolitan district, for not more than two hours between seven and ten o'clock.

(2)The hours of closing which are fixed by this Act, or may be fixed by the justices under the power conferred upon them by this Act shall be substituted for those prescribed as the hours of closing on Sunday in section three of the Licensing Act, 1874.

(3) In section ten of the Licensing Act, 1874, the words "six miles distant, or such further distance as the justices in the case of any particular licensed premises may determine" shall be substituted for the words "three miles distant."

(4) The condition that a licence shall be held as a six-day licence, referred to in section forty-nine of the Licensing Act, 1872, may be inserted by the justices in any such licence, whether the applicant has applied for the insertion of such condition in the licence or not.

moved to leave out sub-section (1). In moving this, I am opening the door to a discussion of the whole principles of the Bill. I think during the last few hours we have shown sufficient on this side to justify our statement that the Bill should be recommitted to the Committee of the whole House. We have had from the Solicitor-General and others expressions of opinion about the Bill, and our views with regard to it, which I am very glad we have had the opportunity of ventilating before the whole country. I would rather be a party to killing this Bill, as I hope I am, than I would be to uphold it when I did not believe its principles went sufficiently far. This clause is the one which deals with the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday. That is no new departure. It has often been discussed in the abstract in the country. It is a most unusual practice, and I think an extremely wrong practice, that a Bill of this wide significance should be introduced as it was by a private Member, and that it should be so largely altered as it has been on subsequent occasions by the Government. When the second reading was moved in March last we had a kind of qualified blessing from the Government if certain things were done. When the Committee stage was reached the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State for the Home Department became sponsors of the measure.

The Bill we are discussing to-day will certainly require more than one afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley said earlier in the day that the alterations had been more or less in the form of concessions. As I pointed out to him in Committee, there was no concession really to anything we believed in or in which we placed any trust. We say that if legislative power is to be exercised this is the place from which it should come, and that legislative power is not to be handed over to the magistrates of this country for unlimited opportunities for capricious use whenever the occasion requires. I remember that in Committee the Solicitor-General criticised a remark of mine that, though magistrates who hold extreme views, like the Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones) and the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, would be qualified in sitting on the bench, yet those who are concerned and have an interest in the licensed trade are not allowed to sit. He corrected me by adding "in their own districts." There is nothing to prevent a magistrate who holds the most extreme views with regard to temperance sitting in his own district. That is no mere idle expression of opinion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well that there are magistrates throughout the country who have strong temperance views, and who. I go so far as to say —though I believe they have an absolute intention of doing justice—cannot bring their minds to do justice on a subject the whole principle of which they personally abhor. Those persons are not qualified to sit in that responsible position. I venture to give a quotation, but I must ask the House not to take it as one that I believe to be typical of the temperance magistrates of this country. I do not think so for an instant, but it is one of the few isolated instances in some districts where their action may be hard and great injustice may be done. The quotation is from a speech by the Mayor of Workington, who is a magistrate in Cumberland. He is a great advocate of temperance. At a temperance meeting on March 11th he said:—

Can the hon. Member mention a single case where the Workington bench has ever taken away a single licence?

The hon. Member has really asked me a most extraordinary question. I did not suggest that this Gentleman was exercising the functions of a magistrate alone, but with colleagues, who, I trust, were not quite so biassed. As to the general conduct of the Cumberland bench I have no time to make any inquiry, but as to the rest of the country, I said I was glad to think that such cases were rare, but that, as long as they did exist, they were dangerous, to the community.

We say if you wish to restrict the hours you should do it by statute, and not leave it to the caprice of the bench at all. The shortening of the hours would be very inconvenient in country districts. Why should London stand in a better position with regard to its Sunday convenience than great towns such as Manchester and Liverpool? It is true that in London there are certain hotels which require facilities, but this Bill is intended to deal with what have been called common houses and com- mon men, and, in those cases, there is no reason why a distinction should be drawn between London and other places. In rural districts it is most essential that the hours of opening should be fairly extensive. No one has ever suggested in the course of Debates in this House that abuses have taken place sufficient to justify such a limitation of hours in country houses. It is merely limiting the conveniences of working men, and it is to that we object, because we do not believe that you are thereby furthering the interests of true temperance. You are not just to the population of the country by the limitation of hours you propose, and you will do a greater and more lasting injustice by leaving the matter to the caprice of magistrates when you have not the courage to settle the question yourselves.

I beg to second the Amendment, partly on the grounds given by the Mover, and also because the clause proposes to legislate in advance of public opinion. Attempts to force upon the people provisions such as are contained in this clause and to legislate in advance of public opinion never achieve the object aimed at. It is perfectly safe to legislate up to the point at which public opinion has arrived; but can it be contended by anyone that public opinion is in favour of the provisions of this clause? Legislation of this kind is sure to be evaded. The contention that this proposal is necessary in order that publicans may enjoy Sunday rest will not be borne out by the experience of licensed victuallers. At present, if a publican wishes to close his house on Sunday he may do so. But he must open it for the bonâ fide traveller, and he would be obliged to do the same under this Bill. It is made more difficult for a man to qualify as a bonâ fide traveller; but as far as the Sunday rest is concerned, the position is the same at present as it will be under this Bill. The Bill imposes a restriction upon the ordinary liberty of the subject, and it is a restriction which it is not proposed to impose in the case of clubs. I feel very strongly that if such a restrictive provision is to be applied to licensed houses, it ought also, to be applied to clubs.

The hon. Member is not entitled to reopen the question of clubs.

I oppose this proposal on the ground that there is no demand for it. Let hon. Members opposite become missionaries and endeavour to convert public opinion. When they have accom- plished that they can come to the House and ask for legislation. We are, year by year, becoming a more temperate people, but the attempts of hon. Members opposite to foist restrictive measures upon the people have to a considerable extent discouraged many who would have allied themselves to them in doing really practical work on behalf of temperance reform. Hon. Members think they are advancing temperance when they take anything they like in the dining-room, and then come in here and propose total prohibition measures for Scotland or elsewhere. The people of England do not like this sort of thing forced upon them. Hon. Members opposite mistake the character of the English people, because they judge the whole population by the little coterie among whom they happen to live, who have been more noisy than the rest of their constituents, and who carry far greater weight than their numbers really justify. The same would apply to hon. Members themselves on the floor of the House. Their numbers are small and their voices are very loud. They try to force upon us any sort of restrictive measures, and I hope hon. Members will reject this section.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out ['After the fifth day of April nineteen hundred and'] stand part of the Clause."

I do not think the House will have gathered from the two speeches to which hon. Members have listened the slightest idea of what the subsection they propose to omit includes. By it the only power which is given to the magistrates is to say which of a fixed number of hours shall be the hours during which the public-houses shall be open on Sunday. According to this part of the Bill the hours for London shall be four and for the country three. The discretion left to the magistrates is which, with a proviso, these hours shall be. I venture to say that a more moderate proposal than that of sub-section I could not have been submitted.

I was waiting for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley to hear the reasons advanced for this Bill. He has not advanced a single particle of evidence as to why the hours of opening of public-houses on Sundays should be reduced. We are asked to agree to a proposal to reduce the present hours of opening by half. I think before we pass such a very drastic measure to reduce by 50 per cent.—it may be right or wrong, but it is a very large proposal—we are entitled to have more reasons advanced. Some of us have not the advantage of being on the Grand Committee. This shows the disadvantages of the Grand Committee system, for here we are discussing this very important proposal without having any record of what occurred upstairs, or any reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman why we should accept this sub-section.

Therefore, we are thrown back upon our own imaginations as to why these proposals are put forward. We on this side are just as anxious for temperance reform as hon. Gentlemen opposite. Deeds and not words are the best answer, and the Licensing Act of the late Government was a far greater measure of temperance reform than any that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward. We stand for individual liberty. No argument has been adduced why you should say it is right and proper that a man should be allowed to drink a glass of beer on a week-day but not on Sundays. I do not wish to say anything disagreeable to hon. Members opposite, but I do say that no argument has been advanced as to the necessity for this, and we are entitled to have some reasons brought forward in support of it. Apart from the question of individual liberty and discriminating between one day of the week and another, I have myself personally a very strong objection to this sub-section, because it gives a preference to the Metropolis over other great towns in the Kingdom, and, indeed, over country districts. Why should London have any preference over Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds or other great towns? Why should it have any preference over the great seaside resorts, where a large number of people go to spend their holidays? They expect to be able to get reasonable refreshments there on Sunday, just as much as on weekdays. In my own Constituency hundreds of thousands of people go down to spend their holidays. I cannot see why these working men and working women should go there and be treated worse than if they were inhabitants of the Metropolis. Surely, if anybody should have a preference and a little more elbow room and liberty, people who are on their holidays are entitled to it?

I find myself in the position of being compelled to vote for this amendment. It seems to be that the first question one should ask oneself—and that I am constantly doing in respect to this class of legislation—is, "What ground is the proposal based upon? "Why Sunday Closing? Sunday is a day of the week upon which there is less drinking than on any other day. The statistics—there have not been very many furnished us by the Home Office—prove that. The average drinking on Sunday, so far as we can judge, is about 50 per cent, less than that on the best week day, and not more than a quarter of that on Saturday. That is either true or false. If it be true the subsection is gone. It ceases to be a provision in the interests of temperance, and it becomes what I venture to say it really is, not a temperance proposal, but a Sabbatarian proposal. It may be none the worse for that reason. It may be proper—according to the views taken. But why disguise it under the name of temperance reform?

On a point of order, Sir, is it Sunday Closing that we are discussing on this Amendment or is not our discussion confined to the Question as to whether the opening should be for six or three hours?

The hon. Member is drawing a very fine distinction. We have a certain amount of Sunday Closing now. By this sub-section power is to be taken to limit that limitation. Therefore I think the arguments of the hon. Member are in order.

I shall endeavour to answer the suggestion on this subject that there is a necessity for further limiting the facilities for obtaining alcoholic refreshments on Sunday. The discussion, so far, has not brought us very much into contact with the Report of the Royal Commission, of which we hear so much when it happens to suit the purpose of temperance reformers. I make myself responsible for this statement: that the chief magistrate of the Metropolis, Sir John Bridge, whose experience was unique in this matter, said that the existing hours of Sunday Closing are satisfactory, and he saw no reason to change them. Mr. Hannay, another experienced man, confirmed that view. All sorts of chief constables and Sir Henry Poland protested against the further interference with the hours of Sunday closing. Hon. Gentlemen know what the Majority Report said. Did it not say that it might be desirable to further curtail the hours of Sunday opening to four as a maximum—not to three, but that London should be excluded from that provision? This Bill, therefore, goes much further than the Majority Report. With regard to the discretion of the justices, it is perfectly true, under this sub-section their discretion is limited. They are to say what should be the limited number of hours both in the country and in the Metropolis during which the public-houses should be open, but it gives the justices no discretion arbitrarily to say when a man shall have a drink. I ask how long is it the view of the party on this side of the House that the justices should determine this question at all. I looked to see what it was the temperance leaders in the Ministry said in their election addresses as to the policy which was required on the drink traffic. My mind goes back first of all to the great gathering at the Albert Hall, when the late Prime Minister received the reins of office as to what was to be the attitude of the Liberal party in regard to licensing. He had been referring to the education question, and he said, "The foundation of our educational policy is that the people of the districts should control and manage the schools," and he then went on to say, "that is also the foundation of our licensing policy." [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member says "Hear, hear," near me, but he does not pretend to give people any voice—

We did propose by last year's Bill to give the people a voice, but that Bill was rejected in another place.

I am referring to the Bill now before the House, and in this Bill you do not propose to give the people a single bit of a voice. You leave it to those non-elected justices. When the present Prime Minister spoke at the Albert Hall demonstration, following the speech of the late Prime Minister, he expressed himself entirely in agreement with what had been said as to the licensing policy of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Lincoln is one of the powers behind the throne. In his election address to his constituents the hon. Member told them what was to be the policy of the Liberal party with regard to the dominating authority to regulate these matters. He said our licensing system should be controlled by the people of the district, and I could give many other quotations of that kind. It has long been the claim of the Liberal party that the people of the district, and not the justices arbitrarily appointed, should regulate the hours of opening. Then why not refer the whole matter to the people of the district at the earliest possible moment. These provisions are admittedly part and parcel of a defeated Bill. The sub-section is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Spen Valley to be an effort to enact that which has been already refused by Parliament. The policy of the Government seems to be to get the provisions of a measure already rejected through in one or two ways, either by tacking it on a Finance Bill, if it happens to be financial, or by tacking it on to a private Member's Bill should it be of a legislative character. I do protest against this innovation. Will some Member on this side of the House tell me why it is proposed to limit the hours of Sunday opening at all? There must be some reason for that. Is it that on Sunday people who have much greater facilities than on any other day of the week for drinking abuse those facilities? If that is the suggestion, it is refuted by all available statistics. Is it because some men prefer communion with their friends in a club to the administration of the minister of their church? I think there is a good deal more of the empty church than of the crowded public-house behind all this. Why are you proposing to further limit the hours of opening on Sundays when there is less drinking on that day than on days when there are more facilities? If that question cannot be answered, then the case for the further limitation of the hours of opening on Sunday is gone. I submit there is a good deal of the Sabbatarian view behind this proposal to interfere with the liberty of the subject.

rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 71.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out ['after the fifth day of April nineteen hundred and'] stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 57.

moved in section (1) to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifteen" instead thereof [1915 instead of 1910.]

This is an Amendment for the purpose of postponing the action of the Bill till 1915. All legislation of this kind is far in advance of public opinion, and consequently can only have the effect of driving drinking into channels which are not supervised by the police of the country. Far more harm is done to the cause of temperance reform by the intolerance of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who consider that they have a monopoly of temperance reform, and in that category I include the right hon. Baronet the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker) and the hon. Member for Appleby (Mr. Leif Jones), whom I see looking up in case he is left out, than other Gentlemen who have had the idea of temperance reform just as much at heart as those two hon. Gentlemen and desire to see temperance reform effected by means of the education of public opinion. I am convinced that the rapid strides which temperance has made in the last two years is under no circumstances due to legislation of the drastic form which has been passed.

I second the Amendment on two distinct classes of grounds. The chief reason might have been gathered, if not known before, from the course which the Debate has taken. From the first to the last not one single argument, fact or figure has been put forward in support of the measure. It has been criticised from many points of view, but no attempt has been made to answer those criticisms. If anyone is going to carry into effect a measure of this sort the ground on which it should be defended surely is that there is some substantial evil with which it is to deal. What is the evil? That has not been adduced. It has not been said that drinking on Sunday is on the increase, and that that is an evil which the reduction in the hours of sale would mitigate. That would be some ground for passing the measure, but no such suggestion has been made. It has been stated that the measure was discussed in Committee; but all the Members of the House were not Members of the Committee. All the Members of the House were not cognisant of the arguments brought forward upstairs or of the arguments adduced in reply to them. The House is asked this afternoon to pass a measure of the most drastic and far-reach ing character without the suggestion of any reason in support of it.

These are the general grounds on which I support the Amendment. As to the specific grounds, this matter of Sunday Closing has for years past played a great part in contested elections. We have had all sorts of promises and all sorts of heckling in the various constituencies. In the contest in my own Constituency I had an experience in respect of it which was not really peculiar. The trade concerned in this sort of legislation addressed to me and to my Liberal opponent a series of questions with regard to Sunday Closing, and they had answers from both of us. I replied that I was opposed to total Sunday Closing.

On a point of order, may I ask what bearing the remarks of the hon. Member have on the Amendment before the House?

We have the question raised as to whether there is an immediate evil requiring a remedy. It is said that there is no immediate evil, and the hon. Member is speaking to that question.

I replied that I was opposed to the total closing of public-houses at any rate until such time as the Legislature should direct that there should be total closing of unlicensed houses. Consequently I was opposed to interference with the law as it stands. My Liberal opponent replied in somewhat the same way. He said he was in favour of the closing of public-houses on Sunday excepting at seaside places. The Constituency happens to be one consisting very largely of seaside places, and the point to which I am legitimately directing attention is that while there may be something to be said for closing public-houses or for restricting the hours of sale in public-houses in agricultural districts on Sunday, obviously the same line of argument would not apply to districts in which there are seaside resorts to which thousands of people go for three or four weeks' holiday or at the week-end.

The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the Amendment. He must confine himself to the proposed change in the date.

I will endeavour to do so. It would be, I think, a very great boon if this legislation could be postponed until 1915, and it would be an infinitely greater boon if it could be postponed indefinitely. In the view of my own constituents the passing of legislation of this character would produce the greatest hardship to them. It would practically destroy their business of the week-end excursionist. It would very greatly interfere with the comfort and convenience of those who go down to Margate and Ramsgate in the season or at week-ends, taking with them possibly their own provisions and relying on the public-houses to go to to consume those provisions with such liquid refreshments as those houses afford. In their name, as well as upon general grounds, I shall feel myself compelled to support this Amendment.

I will try to reason out closely the point whether five years hence would not be a better time for the Bill to come into force than next year. Within the last four years, even since the last Election, a very great change has taken place in the temperance habits of the country. Statistics prove amply that there has been a decrease of drunkenness and an increase of population during the last four years, and in another five years we may expect, if things go on as they are, that drunkenness will be infinitely decreased, while the population is increasing, and if we can throw our minds forward and consider the position at that time I am sure that all the Members of this House will come to the conclusion that this Bill is entirely unnecessary. In those five years we should have had time to have an opportunity of testing closely whether such temperance proposals as this would have any effect, and there would be an opportunity, if we found that so far from doing good they would probably do harm, of passing another Act which would do away with such evils as we may anticipate from this Act now coming into force. That is strictly on the question of five years. But, if I may go a little beyond the absolute point that has been allowed on the question, if I may say so, next January, when this Act is to come into force, all these places which are threatened with this curtailment of their opportunities of supplying liquor on Sunday will have to face a great change. As the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) showed, it would affect the facilities which are afforded at seaside resorts, and by next January there would not be time to make the necessary alterations and changes to meet the altered circumstances, because this will very largely destroy the Saturday to Monday trips in the country. People who go to the seaside from Saturday to Monday are not bonâ fide travellers on Sunday. They cannot get a drink on Sunday because they slept in the place on Saturday night. Thus the Bill would largely hamper the conditions under which this Saturday to Monday business is carried on. Therefore, I think that more time should be given than from now until next January to enable them to make suitable arrangements in some other way to face the difficulties that they will have to face in this Bill. They may be able to make other arrangements by next January, but I doubt it. I think I have shown ample reasons why it would be entirely reasonable to postpone the operation of this Bill for five years.

It must be evident to the House that this is merely a dilatory Amendment. There was no such proposal in connection with other Sunday Closing measures which have, been passed. The idea that any serious inconvenience could be obviated by delaying for five years the operation of the Act is simply a stretch of imagination. The hon. Member who spoke last appeared to be under the impression that this is an entire Sunday Closing Bill. It is only a Bill to shorten the hours during which liquor can be sold, except where the justices otherwise determine.

Hon. Members opposite always say that our Amendments are dilatory. Unable to advance any argument against our proposals, they follow the well-worn old practice of abusing the counsel on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Whittaker) usually is prepared with arguments, but on this occasion he is obliged to fall back on the formula that he cannot accept the Amendment because it is dilatory. He said also that, in fact, the Bill was only to curtail the hours of opening, but having said that he looked across the House and caught my eye, and perhaps saw that I had been examining the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman thought it better to correct his speech while he had time, and, therefore, he added: "except when the justices otherwise determine." It is a very big exception, and it affords, to my mind, an unanswerable argument why the operation of this Bill should be postponed for a given time. The right hon. Gentleman says that we on this side of the House have small confidence in the licensing justices. I do not think that is the point at issue at all. No doubt they have their prejudices, as have all bodies, even the House of Commons. I do not think we should give these great powers to the licensing justices, unless, at any rate, we give an opportunity to the trade and to the public to accustom themselves to those powers which are eventually to be brought into force. I do not want to argue whether or not the justices are an efficient body of persons.

On a point of order. Is the hon. Baronet in order in discussing the whole question of the justices?

The hon. Baronet's reference to the discretion of the magistrates, which is contained in the clause, has a certain bearing on the Amendment which relates to the extension of the period.

There is nothing in the Bill before the House for removing the magistrates and substituting a new body of magistrates with Imperial ideas.

The hon. Baronet's remarks have reference to the period of time when the discretion of the justices should be allowed to come in as a reason for postponement till the year 1915.

If I may say so, Sir, you have correctly interpreted the sense of my remarks. I think the Amendment is a very advantageous one, for two reasons. I think it is only right, if we are going to interfere with the property of any number of persons or any given trade without giving compensation, that there should be a time-limit. The effect of extending the date from 1910 to 1915 would practically be to give the people in the trade the chance to meet the requirements of their customers, and to provide for the loss in money that this will entail. I cannot conceive how anyone, however sincere a temperance reformer he may be, can possibly object to the extension of time. It is only right, also, that the public should have the opportunity of realising the effect of this Bill if it is to become law. The hon. Member for Mansfield laughs.

I was not laughing.

The hon. Member smiles. It is the same thing.

The hon. Member has gained thirty seconds by that interruption.

I beg to congratulate him on his originality.

I suppose the hon. Member is not in the habit of going into public-houses on Sunday. Having got plenty of money he is able to have what liquor he likes outside the public-house. Does he abstain from drink on Sundays altogether? That is a very pertinent observation.

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the question of what I drink on Sunday?

I understand the hon. Baronet to be using it as an illustration.

If there was a great evil the proposal of the Amendment, it might, be felt, would be prejudicial to the remedy of that evil, but I do not believe there has been a single argument that there is an evil which requires instant remedy. In fact, I believe I am right in stating that the curtailing of the hours has not had the effect of remedying drunkenness. It is found that in Wales, where Sunday Closing has been in force since 1881, the Act has not led to an increase of temperance. I do not wish to go through all the figures, as time is short, but they show that Sunday Closing, instead of curtailing the evil, has had the opposite effect; and instead of decreasing the number of convictions for drunkenness, it has increased them. It being absolutely clear that there is no need for hurry, that Sunday Closing does not in any way promote temperance, and that it is only fair to give a trade whose livelihood is to be curtailed an opportunity to adjust their business to the new conditions and the public a chance to change their habits, I shall support the Amendment.

I shall support the Amendment because I think it is folly to legislate on any question in advance of public opinion, and public opinion in this country is not yet ripe for Sunday Closing, such as is proposed in this Bill. Hon. Members who have brought forward Scotland and Wales as arguments in favour of the Bill have not taken into consideration the fact that the conditions in those parts of the United Kingdom are not the same as in England, and it is the latter alone that we have to consider in connection with the present proposals. There is, no doubt, a large volume of opposition to the Bill, and the people upon whom it seeks to impose restrictions will undoubtedly seek means—possibly illegitimate means—to supply the void which the Bill would create. If these contentions are reasonable, they seem to afford an irresistible argument for postponing the operations of the Bill.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Caldwell) declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.

The various arguments which have been put forward have shown no grounds whatever for urgency?

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Caldwell) declined then to put that Question.

There has been no attempt on the other side to prove that the Bill is immediately or urgently necessary—

And it being Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

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

Adjourned at Fire minutes past Five o'clock, till Monday nest.