COUNTY COUNCILS.

§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 27, to leave out "such Order in Council," and insert "Provisional Order under this section."

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

, in moving, in page 6, line 30, to insert— Provided that, in the constitution of any such joint committee, the number of county aldermen appointed to serve thereon shall in no case be more in proportion to the number of councillors so appointed than the number of aldermen in the whole council bears to the councillors, said, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) was disposed to accept this Amendment?

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

No, Sir.

§ MR. CONYBEARE

said, that, under those circumstances, it would be necessary to explain the reasons which induced him to propose this Amendment. He maintained that it was a reasonable and proper Amendment, seeing that it simply provided that, in the constitution of the joint committee, the number of County Aldermen appointed to serve should in no case be more in proportion to the number of Councillors than the number of Aldermen in the whole Council bore to the Councillors. It had already been decided that the nominated Aldermen should be one-fourth of the County Council; and, that being so, he thought it would be undesirable, when a committee was formed to represent two County Councils, that there should be upon that committee as members more than one-fourth who were Aldermen. He took it that the duties of the joint committee would be very important, as the clause now stood, since the passing of the Amendment which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). There might also be at any time a transfer to the Council of very important functions now exercised under different Acts of Parliament, and it seemed to him that the more these matters of business affected two different counties the more important they were likely to be. It was, therefore, highly desirable that nothing further should be done than had already been done by the Reactionary Party connected with the passage of this Bill to deprive the elected representatives in the County Council of their just right of control in this matter of public business. Their rights had already been much curtailed and limited, and it was possible, unless some such provision were adopted as was suggested in this Amendment, that a joint committee of two County Councils might be composed of the unrepresented section of such Councils—that was to say, that the elected representative might be altogether excluded. In order to avoid such a case as that, he thought they ought to provide that the proportion laid down in the Act as being the proportion to be observed in the constitu- 1576 tion of the Council itself between the Aldermen and the elected representives should be observed on the joint committees it was proposed to constitute. He had no wish to waste the time of the Committee by making unnecessary remarks; but be confidently asked for the support of the Committee upon this Amendment.

§ MR. RITCHIE

said, that, of course, the Government could not accept the proposal of the hon. Member, which really placed a limitation upon the power of the County Councils which did not exist in any of the Town Councils elected under the Municipal Corporations Act. The hon. Member was probably aware that the Town Councils, as a whole, elected their committees. It was, therefore, desirable that the County Councils should also be left to choose their committees as they thought best; and, as three-fourths of the County Councils would be elected representatives, the hon. Member might have every confidence that they would be thoroughly well able to wield their just weight and influence.

§ MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he wished to point out, as the right hon. Gentleman had compared this case with the appointment of committees by the Town Councils, that in this instance powers were absolutely delegated to the joint committees of the County Councils, who would, therefore, have far more authority than committees elected by the Town Councils. In the case of committees appointed by Municipal Corporations, they were not responsible for the exercise of the powers they enjoyed; but those who were responsible were the Town Councils which appointed them.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) must have forgotten his experience of Municipal Councils. In the case of 1577 Watch Committees, when they were once appointed they had independent power.

§ MR. CONYBEARE

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had stated reasons why he could not accept the Amendment. One was, that he did not wish to make an invidious distinction between County Aldermen and elected Councillors. He (Mr. Conybeare) had no desire to establish a distinction, but a distinction had already been established by the right hon. Gentleman himself. Hon. Members on that side of the House had contended all along for the principle of popular control by the popularly elected representatives of the people; but the Government, while pretending to grant that principle, had persistently withheld it, and had taken care to make their Bill a sham and a farce by the institution of County Councillors. Having done so, he thought they were bound not to raise invidious distinctions between the County Aldermen and the elected representatives. It was only right they should see that in all respects the proper limitations and the proper proportions, as laid down in the Bill, should be maintained wherever committees were constituted, and wherever it was possible that too great a proportion of the nominated members might be appointed at the expense of the elected representatives. He had not such great confidence in the class from which the nominated Aldermen were likely to be taken as to believe that in all cases the elected representatives would be properly considered, and for that reason he had ventured to place the Amendment on the Paper. The other argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was no provision of this kind in the Municipal Corporations Act. He would venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was nothing in the Municipal Corporations Act in regard to the constitution of joint committees such as were proposed to be constituted here. If the right hon. Gentleman could show him a case where, under the Municipal Corporations Act, it was proposed that two boroughs should appoint a committee for the purpose of joint control, there would be something in his argument; but he was raising a false issue based on an entire fallacy. There- 1578 fore, there was no force in his argument; and he hoped that the Committee would not think he was needlessly obstructive if he asked for a Division to be taken upon the Amendment. He did not wish unnecessarily to waste the time of the House, but he really thought it a point that was worthy the attention of the Committee.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend, having placed his argument before the House, would not take a Division upon the Amendment.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he wished to say one or two words upon this clause before it was passed. He had no desire to go back to any of the matters that were discussed under the clause; but it must be remembered that this was the only Decentralization Clause of the Bill. In regard to the powers hitherto given, they were not strictly decentralization powers, because the magistrates were a Local Authority, and it was simply transferring power from one Local Authority to another. But this clause was intended to be decentralizing, because it gave powers that were now exercised by the Executive Government to the County Councils. He regretted that in the clause they were about to pass so very little was done in the nature of decentralization. As a matter of fact, nothing was done actually, but whatever was to be done hereafter was to be a matter for future legislation. As the matter was to be considered in future, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he came to frame his Provisional Order, to endeavour to amplify the powers conferred by it. He would speak of an Office with which he was familiar—namely, the Home Office. He believed that there were powers now vested in the Home Office far more important than those which had been placed in the Schedule, and which might with great advantage be transferred to the County Councils. He had always felt, and the present Home Secretary must feel, that the Home Office had no proper staff to deal with such questions as the inspection of mines and the provisions of the Factory 1579 and Workshops Acts. Those duties were thrown upon the Home Office without providing the Office with any means of dealing with them. The consequence was that the staff was most imperfect, and the duties were not satisfactorily performed. He could not conceive questions more appropriate for the Local Authorities to deal with than mines, the circumstances and character of which varied in every locality. For instance, the mines in South Wales differed from those in Durham, those in Durham from those in the central counties, and those in the central counties differed again from those in Lancashire. He was deeply convinced of the utter inability of the Central Authority to deal properly with these questions; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, when he came to frame his Provisional Order, would consider the propriety of transferring these powers to the Councils, so that they might be under the supervision and control of persons fully acquainted with, and chiefly interested in, the subject.

§ MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said he wished, before the clause passed, to call attention to the operation of the clause upon the Burial Laws. The whole condition of the Burial Laws was very unsatisfactory, and even discreditable. The intention of the clause, as it was originally drawn in the Bill, was to confer upon the County Councils all the powers now exercised by the Home Office under the old Burial Acts, and also the powers exercised by tile Local Government Board under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879. That, at least, was the view of the President of the Local Government Board, as expressed in an answer given to him (Mr. Morgan) 10 days ago. To that he had no objection; but, as a matter of fact, he found that the clause would have no such operation, for several Acts by which important duties which were now imposed upon the Home Secretary were not mentioned in the Schedule; and, moreover, several sections, both of the Burial Acts and the Act of 1879, which ought to have been included in the Schedule, were omitted therefrom. What he wished to point out was that, unless more care was taken in framing the Provisional Order Bill, they would find themselves landed in further difficulties; confusion 1580 would become more confounded, and instead of having, as at present, to deal with two Bodies, it would be necessary to deal with three.

§ MR. RITCHIE

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that every care would be taken to provide adequately in the Provisional Order Bill for the administration of the Burial Law. He promised that the matter should be carefully considered before the Provisional Order Bill was drawn up. In reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), of course, like the right hon. Gentleman, he had no wish to enter into any previous discussion as to the proposals which were made originally and the proposal which was submitted now. At the proper time it would be open for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether or not some further powers which now existed might not be transferred. The right hon. Gentleman had referred specially to the inspection of mines. As the clause was originally framed, the Government were anxious to decentralize as far as possible. They not only provided at once for the transfer of many powers to the County Councils, but in the clause they took powers of an extensive character to make further transactions of business by an Order in. Council. That had arisen from a desire to provide work for the County Councils when they were set up, and also to deal as lightly as possible with the whole matter in a decentralizing spirit. Although they had adopted now another proposal which had been pressed upon them from more than one quarter of the House, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman it would be their duty, and their willing duty, to consider the suggestions or observations he desired to make in reference to the matter. He hoped, when the Provisional Order Bill was laid on the Table of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman would feel satisfied that the Government were as anxious as ever to bring about a satisfactory and effective decentralization.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (, &c.) Kirkcaldy

said, that the clause, which was to be passed in its present emasculated condition in deference to the desire of that House to have further legislation next Session, was worth little or nothing. All that it did was to give a promise on the part of the Government 1581 to bring in a Bill in another Session. The only distinction between it and an ordinary Public Bill was that it was to be brought in in the shape of a Provisional Order Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was much too sanguine if he expected that his Provisional Order Bill would be at all like ordinary Provisional Order Bills, and would be passed without difficulty. Ordinary Provisional Order Bills were dealt with under certain circumstances; but this would effect so great a change that it was impossible to suppose that it could be introduced and disposed of in that House in the course of a few hours. He trusted that it would be a liberal Bill.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

said, he desired to make an appeal to hon. Members who had given Notice of Amendments to this clause. As the Committee were aware, it was within the right of hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments on the Paper to move those Amendments before they came to consider the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. Looking, however, to the fact that the Government proposed to omit the clause, he would press upon them not to propose their Amendments. In the event of the Committee coming to the conclusion that the clause should be omitted, of course their Amendments would be unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the Committee should conclude that the clause should stand part of the Bill, hon. Members would not be prevented from moving their Amendments on the Report. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen would not move their Amendments, as that course would be very greatly for the convenience of the Committee.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he was sure that the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be the most convenient one, and he, therefore, hoped that it would be adopted.

§ MR. RITCHIE

said, he had to ask the Committee to omit this clause from 1582 the Bill. They would be aware that originally the Government proposed to deal, not only with this phase of the question, but with the whole question of licensing and matters of that description. He did not propose—in fact, it would be out of Order—to enter into discussion of the matters touched upon in the various clauses which affected the liquor traffic. The Government made those proposals in the hope that both sides of the House would find in them, at least, a basis for a satisfactory settlement of this great and difficult question. Unfortunately, the Government had been compelled to come to the conclusion that their proposals were not likely to find acceptance from that Party in the House which had identified itself for so many years, and so honourably, with the cause of temperance. The Government had, therefore, come to the conclusion, that, as far as time was concerned, it was impossible to deal with the question. They perceived that if they determined to proceed with those clauses it would only be done after a most protracted discussion, and in the face of very great opposition. They felt that, looking to the period of the Session, it was impossible for them to hope that they would be able to discuss this question adequately, and to deal with all the Amendments, which filled several pages of the Notice Paper, and also with the other various important matters in connection with the Bill. With considerable reluctance the Government came to the conclusion that, so far as time alone was concerned, even apart from other considerations, it would be impossible for them to deal with this, and likewise with other questions in the Bill during the present Session. But it was not merely a question of time. They felt that, not-withstanding the good intentions of the Government, there had been a very considerable amount of feeling created out-of-doors upon this question. He did not propose to discuss whether that feeling was justifiable, but the fact remained that an enormous amount of feeling had been excited upon the question, and that it was likely to continue to be excited. Therefore, the Government considered that even if they were able in point of time to carry these clauses they would have been face to face with this enormous difficulty—that the first election of the County Councils 1583 would have been prejudiced by the feeling created throughout the country on this question. They were desirous that all the County Councils should be chosen simply with a view of selecting the best men, and they felt that it was most essential the first Council, looking to the great importance of the duties which would devolve upon them, should be free from the excited public feeling which would, undoubtedly, have been excited if these clauses had been pressed. Therefore, both in regard to time and the efficiency of the first Council elected, they felt it was extremely desirable that these matters should not be proceeded with. He knew some hon. Members thought the Government might, at least, have dealt with this particular question of Sunday closing under the 9th clause. But the Government did not shrink from the position they had taken up. They had always contended that these matters might be dealt with locally in a satisfactory manner; but both the considerations which had prompted them to ask the House for leave to abandon the Licensing Clauses applied also to this particular clause. If hon. Gentlemen would look at the Notice Paper, they would see that there were a large number of Amendments on the clause, and that if the clause were pressed it would probably be discussed at great length. But the other considerations he had already named also entered very largely into the question. It would be very unfortunate, he thought, if the first election of County Councils were to be complicated by any question of Sunday closing. With reference to the views of the Temperance Party, he believed there was a strong desire—as was apparent from resolutions which had reached the Local Government Board—that that Party did not desire that Sunday closing should be referred to the County Councils and dealt with in the way proposed by the clause. There was hardly a single resolution upon the question which had been sent to the Board which did not commence at once by saying the question of Sunday closing was not one that need be referred to the County Councils at all. Therefore, the Government felt that in abandoning this particular clause they were not going against the views of the Temperance Party of the country. He thought he had stated, very fairly 1584 and very frankly, the reasons which had actuated the Government in asking leave to withdraw these clauses. He had also stated the reasons which rendered it undesirable that the Committee should deal with one part of the question only. He hoped the Committee would recognize in the reasons he had given sufficient justification for the proposal the Government now made, that Clause 9 should be omitted from the Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he recognized the fair and frank spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached this subject, and that he himself would endeavour to deal with it, so far as he could, in the same manner. He had no desire to bring any charge whatever against the Government. He would say nothing that could ruffle the equanimity of even the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) on this subject, which he should separate entirely from the question of licensing and compensation, with which it had nothing whatever to do. He wished, however, to make one remark on that part of the question. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that some difficulty might arise and some strong feeling be developed in the County Councils, owing to the difference of opinion which undoubtedly existed throughout the country with regard to the liquor traffic. But he pointed out that if the right hon. Gentleman meant the County Councils to be living Bodies they must be given some work to perform. Unless they gave the County Councils something to do in the interest of the community which they represented, they would be absolutely worthless Bodies. They would be worthless Bodies if the Government were going to confine their work to questions on which society was neutral, such as main roads and bridges. Therefore, he thought the matters to be referred to them should be such as were of interest to the community, and on which public opinion was largely divided. He regarded the County Councils as Bodies which ought to be guardians of that which concerned the health and morals of the community over which they were placed, and, therefore, he thought that questions of a local character which affected the interest of the county communities ought to be placed in their hands. He believed that this question of Sunday closing was eminently one 1585 which ought to be dealt with by the County Councils. He desired not to occupy the time of the Committee more than he could help; but he would, as briefly as possible, remind the House of what had been the history of this Sunday closing question. Many years ago, before he was in Parliament, Sunday closing had been enacted for Scotland, and since that time it had been enacted for Ireland and Wales. Sunday closing had not, therefore, been hitherto carried out by any general compulsory law; but Parliament had felt its way step by step when it had felt certain of acting in accordance with the wishes of the people with whom it had to deal. They knew that in Scotland the great majority of the people were in favour of Sunday closing, and that in Ireland, also, there was a great predominance of feeling in its favour. They had given Sunday closing to Ireland in consequence, and when they found that the same feeling existed in Wales they had given it to the Principality, and he was convinced that if they found the same feeling to exist in England, they must, to be successful, proceed on the same lines. Besides the Sunday Closing Bills which had been passed into law, Bills had been brought forward from other parts of the United Kingdom. These were Bills brought forward with respect to Durham, Cornwall, Monmouth, and other counties. He remembered a remarkable scene occurring in connection with the Durham Sunday Closing Bill. That Bill was supported by all the Members for the county, except his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir George Elliot), who said that although he did not agree with the Bill he knew that his constituents were strongly in its favour, and he could not record his vote against it. He reminded the Committee that although the Durham Bill was confined to one county it went through the House of Commons and passed a second reading in the House of Lords despite the opposition of Lord Salisbury. Up to the year 1885, there was no doubt that the Conservative Party had been opposed to these measures in their various forms. He remembered that when Viscount Cross—then Sir Richard Cross—was sitting in the House he took the line that there ought to be one rule in this matter for the whole country. He (Sir William 1586 Harcourt) had never taken that view, and he thought that experience showed that what the noble Lord advocated was not a wise way of proceeding. In his view the proper principle was that each locality should judge for itself in this matter, for he believed the greatest mischief that they could do in a case of the kind was to attempt by Parliamentary enactment to impose reforms of this character upon communities which were not prepared for them, and did not wish them to be imposed. That mistake had been made a few years ago in connection with the Bill of Lord Grosvenor, and was not likely to be repeated. He had for many years contended for the principle of Local Option in this matter as against universal compulsion, because it gave the power of applying this reform to places which required it, and saved them from the danger of imposing it on places where it was not desired. He wished to define exactly what he meant by the term Local Option. He meant the right of each section of the community to determine this Sunday closing question or any other question according to its own wishes or the wishes of the public. As he had stated on a former occasion, the matter was mainly a question of areas, and he believed the smaller the areas which enjoyed Local Option the better, because the feeling of the people with whom they were dealing would be more certainly represented. He would willingly have accepted a smaller area than the county, because he conceived that one part of the county might wish this rule to be enforced, while other parts of the same county might have a different opinion, and he should have been very glad if Local Option could have been given to parishes. The difficulty which had been raised in reference to this matter, and the reason why the principle of compulsion and not Local Option had been adopted, was because there existed no Body within the county which could adequately represent the feeling in different parts of the county and determine on the matter. They had been extremely glad, and had looked forward to the Local Government Bill as a proper means of creating an authority which would be able to come to a determination on the question. He had spoken on the views which two or three years ago were taken as between 1587 different sections in reference to this question, although he gladly acknowledged that it was not now a Party question. There were undoubtedly good friends to the cause on both sides of the House. Lord Salisbury's celebrated Newport speech in 1885 contained a declaration on this subject however, which gave great satisfaction. He need not remind the House that Lord Salisbury stated that— Looking at it from an impartial point of view, it was impossible not to see the difficulty of a uniform system for the whole country, and if the Government were not afraid of running against some rather antiquated views and doctrines they would have adopted the simple practice of leaving each locality to do what it liked in the matter. The noble Lord went on to say that he ventured to think that in the few words he had said the idea would rush to the minds of those who heard him that he was proposing Local Option. The noble Lord certainly was proposing Local Option, and he went on to say that he did not think Local Option was bad where it could be legitimately applied, and that they had adopted it with reference to the closing of public-houses on Sunday where it was in accordance with the views of the population, and was regarded as a legitimate action to take place; and the noble Lord said he would therefore be inclined to entrust the Local Authorities with this difficult question of Sunday closing, but always on the understanding that they should not be entrusted with the power of dealing finally with the subject. They were satisfied with that declaration, and he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to say that when it was put into practical shape in the 9th clause of the Bill all Members considered it decidedly satisfactory. [Cries of "Certainly not!"] He was sorry to hear that; but, at all events, they had always looked forward to the Local Government Bill as the measure in which the principle should be embodied. If that was not in itself the most practical proposal, it had, at any rate, one very great recommendation, to which Lord Salisbury himself referred when he said in 1886 on the Durham Bill— I remember that the late Government expressed their opinion that the matter ought to be left to the judgment of the localities acting through freely-elected representative Bodies, and that that view was generally 1588 accepted on all sides of sides of politics throughout the country."—(3 Hansard, [306] 18) He (Sir William Harcourt) entirely agreed with that. It was the view accepted by the leading Representatives of both Parties in the State, and, as Lord Salisbury had said, it was the view accepted on all sides of politics throughout the country. Well, if that were so, why was this clause to be withdrawn? Who opposed it? The Government did not oppose it, because it was their own clause. The Opposition supported it cordially. Why, then, was it withdrawn? It was said that it was connected with other clauses; but he ventured to say it was not connected with the clauses the right hon. Gentleman had referred to. The objection to the other clauses was with respect to the proposal of the Government for compensation, but the question of compensation had nothing whatever to do with the clause. As the clause had nothing to do with compensation, why was it to be abandoned? As regarded Clause 10, the Government were entitled to say that they regarded compensation as part of that clause; that the two clauses were inseparably united; and that they must be taken the one with the other; but with reference to this clause they could not say anything of the kind. It had never been so treated. At no period of the discussion of the Sunday closing question had the matter been so dealt with. The two questions were treated in the speech of Lord Salisbury at Newport as entirely distinct. Then, he asked, why should they abandon the clause, and why should it be withdrawn from the consideration of the Committee? The Government had admitted that they could deal with one kind of traffic without compensation. For these reasons they asked the Government seriously to consider whether there was any ground on which the clause should be withdrawn, and why they should not agree with Members on that side of the House to carry out what Lord Salisbury called a policy that had been frankly accepted by both Parties in the State? An hon. Member of the House (Mr. Caine) had come forward to make a bitter personal attack upon him because he had requested that the clause should be retained. The hon. Member was a great classical scholar, and he seemed to have borrowed a Latin grammar in order to 1589 assist him in denouncing him as a traitor to the Liberal cause, for proposing that the policy accepted by both Parties in the State should be carried out. The hon. Member held him up as a traitor, and charged him with having invented the County Sunday Closing Bills for Durham and Cornwall. The hon. Member's assertion on that point did not happen to be true, but perhaps he did not think that material. For his (Sir William Harcourt's) own part, he had had nothing to do with inventing the Durham and Cornwall Bills. They came before the House without his knowledge, and he supported them because he thought the proposals which they contained were good; indeed, he should not wonder if they were supported by the hon. Member for Barrow himself. The hon. Member, with admirable consistency, charged him, who, he said, was the inventor of the County Sunday Closing Bills before the House for many years, with having now, for the first time, taken an interest in the temperance cause. The hon. Member said that he had taken up the 9th clause, which he (Sir William Harcourt) had contended for for years, in order to make with it a stick with which to beat the Tory Government. The hon. Member went on to charge him with having taken that course with the object of betraying the cause of Sunday closing. He confessed that He had not been very deeply wounded by these accusations, coming from such a quarter. If he were so in any degree, he had been happily supplied with a salve in the form of an application made to him to preside over a great annual meeting at Manchester of the United Kingdom Alliance. As the hon. Member for Barrow was the Vice President of that Association, he should be happy on that occasion to preside over him. But he would not go on with this subject. There were more things that he could say; but the hon. Member for Barrow knew perfectly well the reasons that withheld him from stating what he thought of his conduct on the present occasion, and from stating facts which might have justified him in pronouncing oven a more severe sentence upon the hon. Member. Should he state his reasons? [Mr. CAINE: Certainly.] Then he would do so. His reason was that the hon. Member for Barrow himself advised him to take this 1590 particular course, although it was not the advice of the hon. Gentleman which he followed.

§ MR. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness)

Do I understand rightly the right hon. Gentleman to say that I advised him to take the course he is now taking with regard to this clause?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Yes.

§ MR. CAINE

Then I absolutely deny it.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, all he could say was that he did not put that Notice upon the Paper without endeavouring to ascertain the views of hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in that matter. He went to persons whom he regarded as sincere supporters of the temperance cause and of Sunday closing, to obtain their opinions in regard to the proposal to retain the clause. He confessed he did not go to the hon. Member for Barrow. ["Hear, hear!"] No; he did not go to the hon. Member for Barrow, but the hon. Member came to him. He did not consult the hon. Member as a rule; that hon. Member came to him and offered him his advice, and he listened to it with the greatest pleasure. That advice was, that he should propose the retention of the 9th clause and acquiesce in the abandonment of the 10th clause.

§ MR. CAINE

I deny having done anything of the kind.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he must leave the matter there. There were others who knew that what he was stating was accurate. He must apologize to the Committee for having occupied so much time with the hon. Member for Barrow. But it was impossible for him to pass over the statement he had made without notice. He would merely state further in reference to the hon. Member for Barrow that, having offered him that advice, he went to one of those secret meetings whose proceedings were always published, and having changed his opinions he sat down without one word of communication with himself and denounced him as a traitor to the temperance cause. Now, that was the real position of this matter. What they had to consider was not what the hon. Member for Barrow had said, but what was the best thing to be done in the interest of the Sunday closing cause. Now he ventured to point out that the 9th clause stood upon its own merits apart from 1591 all other questions—that was to say, from the Questions of licensing and compensation. If the Temperance Party were united they could unquestionably carry this clause, and it was only through the operation of that powerful engine of Caucusing—that piece of political machinery which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) so much advocated—that the clause was in danger. Of course, if the clause were passed the Government would not abandon their Bill. Why should they, merely because their own clause had been passed which they necessarily approved of and which the rest of the House approved of? Therefore, as they would not abandon the Bill, those who desired it would get the clause and the provisions which it contained. The question was, what was going to happen if they did not pass the clause? They had heard something of people not supporting the proposal because they were offered something else. They were offered a debate on the Bill of his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson). He wished to speak of his hon. Friend with that respect which he deserved from everybody who had the interest of temperance at heart. His hon. Friend was the veteran of Sunday closing; he had brought forward his Bill over and over again. They knew very well what was meant by all that; it meant that a certain number of hon. Members wanted to give a bogus vote; that it was highly inconvenient to them that a genuine, honest vote for the temperance cause should be given; and it was on that account that the injurious machine of the Caucus had been devised. He would now inquire what was to be substituted for the clause, which hon. Members could carry if they wished, and which if they did carry would have this effect—that Durham, Cornwall and all the counties that wanted it would have Sunday closing at once under the operation of the Bill now before the Committee? To carry the clause was to carry the Durham Bill and the Cornwall Bill. He had shown what might happen if they were earnestly endeavouring to further the temperance cause, and how easily they might forward that cause by keeping this bird in hand. But he asked what about the bird in the bush? They were going to have a debate on the Bill of the hen. Member for 1592 South Shields, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had graciously promised. His hon. Friend the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who was a cautious man—and it was quite right to be cautious on these occasions—had asked whether the Government were going to support that Bill? Were the Committee to understand that Her Majesty's Government were going to vote in favour of the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields? They would like to have some information on this subject before they accepted the offer of the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for this clause. Again, no one could speak with greater authority on the liquor question than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Was the right hon. Gentleman going to support the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields?

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

Yes; I am.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Very well. Would the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Government, whose mainstay he was, would carry that Bill through the House of Commons, and through the House of Lords? If he would say that, then he would withdraw what he had said at once. He would like to know whether the noble Lord the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) would also go bail for the Government? This was an important case, and they had a right to two bails. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale would go bail for the Government that they would carry the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields through during the present Session, he thought they might well agree to drop the 9th clause on that understanding. But the difficulty in his own mind was that the principle of that Bill was the very thing that Lord Salisbury said he could, under no circumstances, agree to. There were various other proposals that Lord Salisbury would consent to, but he said that under no circumstances would he admit universal compulsory Sunday closing for England. That being so, be thought that the bird in the bush stood in a very uncertain position; it appeared 1593 to him that it had already flown away, and that they would be foolish beyond all comparison if they were to accept such a substitution for a proposal which, if adhered to, might be carried into law during this Session. He was entirely against the proposal for giving a bogus vote in a matter of this kind. Let the Committee have a genuine downright temperance vote on this clause, and then they would know where they stood. They had seen the ingenious device before of pretending to do one thing when it was intended to do exactly the opposite. This clause had to be voted against, because it was known that if it were carried the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields would have to be supported. The people of England, and even the Temperance Party, were not so stupid as not to see through a device of this character. They knew that it was not in the cause of temperance that the hon. Member for Barrow had written the letter he had referred to; it was for a very different object, and they thoroughly understood that ho was the instrument of a very different policy. He, therefore, entreated the Government to have nothing to do with this Caucus. It was not their affair—they were entirely guiltless in respect of it. They had, he believed, proceeded in a perfectly fair manner in this matter, and they had nothing to do with this device of hocus-pocusing. What he pressed upon the Government was that they should allow this part of the Bill to stand. By doing so they would carry with them the greater part of the Temperance Party in the country; and they would give to each part of the community power to deal with a matter of great interest to itself in a manner most conducive to its interests. It might be said that there would be a law in one place different from the law in another. That would be so; but he pointed out that they had a different law in Scotland from that which obtained in Wales, and it was a very good thing that it was so, because if the clause were retained, and Cornwall, for instance, should wish for Sunday closing, it could have it, while if, on the other hand, London did not wish for Sunday closing, it need not have it. They should not attempt to impose an inflexible law of this kind upon an unwilling people, thereby destroying a principle to which a great deal of im- 1594 portance was attached. He hoped the clause would be supported on this occasion, and he could not conceive why the Government should object to it, because the question had not only been dealt with in the Bill, but Lord Salisbury had treated the question of Sunday closing as being entirely separate from the questions of licensing and compensation; and it was upon that footing that he ventured to suggest that this question should be dealt with. He made no other proposal; he did not desire to press the Government with reference to the subsequent clause; he admitted the fairness of the argument that its provisions were inextricably mixed up with the question of compensation. He did not raise that question; he desired to confine the matter solely to the principle of Sunday closing; and, for the reasons he had stated, he hoped the Committee would agree to his proposal to retain the 9th clause of the Bill.

§ MR. CAINE

said, the Committee would not be surprised that he should endeavour to follow the right hon. Gentleman and give some explanation as to the charges brought against him. He had noted his own record in this matter with some care ever since he took up the agitation against these clauses. He had not the slightest recollection of ever having consulted the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Clause 9; and he must say that if every chance conversation which took place was brought forward in the House of Commons and used as a means of discrediting opponents, it seemed to him that a fresh terror had been added to the debates in that House. He could only give the right hon. Gentleman's charge the most unqualified contradiction. There had been only one occasion on which he had ever wavered in the least with respect to this particular clause, as well as the rest of the Licensing Clauses of the Bill, and that was at a meeting of the Temperance Committee of the House of Commons, at which 24 Gentlemen were present out of a Committee of 120. The Committee met a week or two ago and discussed this question. His hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) had expressed his intention to strongly oppose this clause. His own views were perfectly well known to hon. Gentlemen upon the Committee, and he had then stated that if it could be shown 1595 that there was a consensus of opinion on the part of the Temperance Party in favour of the retention of this clause he would sink his own views and support it on its own merits. That was the only occasion on which he had given a hint that he should support the clause. He did not pretend to be the equal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, either in debate or in invective; but he would like to refer to the attacks which he and other hon. Members, as well as the newspapers of the right hon. Gentleman's Party, had made upon him personally, and various Members of the Liberal Unionist Party, saying that they had made a bargain to sacrifice Sunday closing in the interest of the Government and the Party to which they belonged. The right hon. Gentleman said that the country hailed the 9th clause with satisfaction. He opposed the clause on its own merits, and, in refusing to vote for its retention in the Bill, he had consistently adhered to the position which he had originally taken up. In taking that line, he maintained that he had been fully supported by the main votes of the Temperance Party, from John O'Groat's to the Land's End. [Cries of "No!"] In March last the annual meeting of the National Temperance Federation was held, at which there were 24 delegates present, representing a total membership of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of persons, old and young. He was President of the Body, and many Vice Presidents of the organization present to-night in the House were present at the meeting. The Annual Report had been previously circulated, and it contained a paragraph in reference to the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields to the effect that the organization was against relegating this question of Sunday closing to Local Bodies, inasmuch as the country was fully prepared for an Imperial measure of Sunday closing. All those present voted for the adoption of the Report, and not a single one said a word against the recommendation contained in the Report. The Central Association for stopping the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays were very glad to welcome so distinguished a recruit as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The right hon. Gentleman had not always been 1596 in favour of Sunday closing; he had been recently converted on this as upon a great many other questions; but, highly as he valued his opinion, he thought that the expressed opinion of the organization which had this particular question at heart was of much greater value. That Association had been holding meetings all over the country on this subject, and what did it say? In May, 1888, the Association passed a resolution, after the second reading of the Bill and before there had been any talk about withdrawing the clause, to the effect that it was most important that no opportunity should be lost of impressing upon Members of Parliament the fact that the country had long demanded total Sunday closing, and they protested against the delay and inconvenience which must arise from referring the question to the proposed Local Authorities. He would like to read a resolution which had been passed with regard to these clauses at every meeting throughout the crisis. It was to this effect—that it was a question which need not be referred to localities for decision as proposed in the Local Government Bill, inasmuch as public opinion was already ripe for Imperial legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby objected to the word "Imperial." He was not surprised at that, but the words "Imperial legislation" were in constant use as applied to Sunday closing, and signified the action of the Imperial Parliament as opposed to Local Option or the action of Local Bodies. The resolution also urged upon Her Majesty's Government—and he hoped that the Committee would note this—to give special facilities for passing the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. J. C. Stevenson), as it was in full harmony with other legislation which had been attended with beneficial results. He hoped that the hon. Member for South Shields was going to stick to this legislation and not throw it over. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby to hold him up to ridicule as a traitor to the temperance cause. He was loth to speak of himself, but he had been more active in his opposition to the Licensing Clauses of the Bill than any Member—perhaps he might say than any 10 Members in that House. He had attended 32 meetings, and in every 1597 one he had advocated the withdrawal of this 9th clause with the others, on the ground that the Licensing Clauses were a thoroughly bad Licensing Bill stuck into the middle of a good Local Government Bill, and that they ought to be withdrawn. But he had always pointed out that the Temperance Party demanded total Sunday closing by Parliament, and not the ridiculous sham of this clause. But it was now contended that the Temperance Party had changed their minds. The Temperance Party had changed their minds many times during the discussion of these clauses, and he was not surprised, because circumstances had changed, and as circumstances changed opinion changed also; but he denied that the Temperance Party were desirous of retaining the 9th clause. The Chairman of the Church of England Temperance Society—[Laughter]—hon. Members might laugh, but the Chairman of that society had rendered services to the cause of temperance second to none—the Chairman had stated that their strong support would be given to the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields, and that they had always held that Sunday closing was properly an Imperial question. He had himself presided last week over a meeting of the National Temperance Federation, at which most of the federated bodies had been represented; no one could be induced at that meeting to move a resolution in support of the clause lest it might work badly and impede the Bill which they hoped to secure. The Grand Lodge of the English Good Templars had met last Friday and declared against Clause 9, and in favour of the question being fought out on the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields, although nobody thought then that the Liberal Unionists could get facilities from Her Majesty's Government for the discussion of that measure. He would now read an extract from The Birmingham Daily Post of the 22nd of June. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was so far advanced as to be invited to the meeting of the United Kingdom Alliance for the Total Suppression of the Liquor Traffic. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman and the House upon that, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm upon that question, and not go 1598 through the same gyrations he had gone through with regard to Sunday closing. In The Birmingham Daily Post there appeared a resolution of the Birmingham branch of the United Kingdom Alliance, which was one of the most energetic in the country, and worked not only in Birmingham, but all over the Midlands. They had expressed their conviction that the provisions of the 9th clause were perfectly inadequate to meet the evils of the sale of liquor on Sunday, or to satisfy the already registered wishes of the people on this subject, and they therefore strongly urged Members of Parliament to support the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields. That resolution had been passed on the day before the Liberal Unionist meeting was held. He would like now to ask a question, to which he trusted an answer would be given. He pointed out that the agitation against the Licensing Clauses had been a purely non-Party agitation until the Government proposed to withdraw them, and now a new agitation had set in, conducted in the name of the Temperance Party, for their retention. How was it that the attempt to retain this clause had not been made by the hon. Member for South Shields, or the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland, or some recognized Leader of the Temperance Party? How did it come into the hands of that political lurcher, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby? The right hon. Gentleman had lately had a passion for posing as the leader of movements he was wont to oppose. The right hon. Gentleman had given an account of a fancy conversation in the Lobby with himself. He would now come to a real conversation which took place.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

asked, would the hon. Gentleman say that at a meeting of his Federation he did not report as the ground of his action his conversation with him?

§ MR. CAINE

said, he stated that he did not approve of this particular clause, and, as Chairman, he endeavoured to elicit information. He asked if any member was ready to move a resolution in support of the clause?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he asked whether the hon. Member reported to that meeting the conversation which he stated he had with him?

§ MR. CAINE

said, he was endeavouring to explain, in the first place, what was his action at the meeting. If the right hon. Gentleman would not allow him to answer the question in his own way, he would not answer it at all. His action was, as President of that Association, to find out whether or not it was in favour of the 9th clause. He had expressed his own views clearly enough, and no one present could doubt what they were. He had no recollection whatever of having referred to the right hon. Gentleman's name. He did not deny that they might have discussed the subject, but he had no recollection of it. But, certainly, he had never taken the advice of the right hon. Gentleman as to what action either himself or anyone else should take. He had never consulted anybody; he had taken his own line, as he always did on political questions. He had pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was in the habit of posing as leader of movements which he was wont to oppose. The other day he found the right hon. Gentleman heading a procession of those who were voting against Disestablishment; in fact, he was posing in his favourite character of Uncle Pumblechook. The right hon. Gentleman had the effrontery to come to him in the Lobby—who had been in favour of Disestablishment ever since he had cut his teeth—and congratulate him on having given a vote in favour of Disestablishment, and yet it was the first vote ever given in that House by the right hon. Member for Derby; and now the right hon. Gentleman threw his mantle of patronage over the Temperance Party. In June, 1880, the hon. Member for South Shields moved that in the opinion of the House it was expedient that the law which limited the hours of sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday in England and Wales should be amended and applied to the whole of that day. The right hon. Gentleman voted against that. On the next occasion, the 30th of May, 1883, when the County of Durham Bill was brought forward, he supported it. Now the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of Local Option, and he was also in favour of the question being referred to the new County Council which was to be elected for 20 other purposes, and which could vary and repeal their orders. As far as he was concerned, he had always stood by Im- 1600 perial Sunday closing. They had it in Scotland and Wales, and they intended to get it for England. He wanted to appeal to all true friends of temperance to allow this clause to go with the others. There was no finality in it; the Council might enact it, but they might rescind it; the fight would be interminable, and at every successive election. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that they were on the verge of victory under the old flag and on the old battle-ground; the Government had pledged to meet them on that battle-ground, and he asked nothing more from them. He believed that they would carry by a good majority the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields. He hoped that all temperance men in the House would resist the temptation of this dubious proposal, and let it go into limbo with the rest of the Licensing Clauses of the Bill. But, before he closed his remarks, he desired to point out that if this solution of Sunday closing was accepted and universally applied, and the Bill went through on other grounds, it will result in a loss of revenue to the County Councils of £300,000, in consequence of the publicans only having to pay for a six days' licence. This would give a very strong bias to many ratepayers in the selection of their representatives for the County Councils, and he warned the Government that the proposal to transfer the licence revenue from the Imperial to the Local Exchequer would meet with the uncompromising hostility of the whole Temperance Party. He was much obliged to the Committee for the patience with which they had listened to him. He was sorry he had had to enter into a collision with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. He had given, as well as he could, the purport of the conversation which took place between them, and he had nothing more to say upon it.

§ MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

said, he would not have trespassed upon the attention of the Committee did he not feel bound to corroborate the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) in the statement he had just made. The Temperance Committee of the House of Commons, of which he (Mr. Johnston) was one of the secretaries, held a meeting in one of the Committee rooms upstairs to discuss the Licensing Clauses 1601 of the Local Government Bill. The meeting was presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cocker-mouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) was also present. The discussion was as to what should be the action of the Temperance Party in the House of Commons in regard to the whole of the Licensing Clauses of the Bill, and after a lengthened discussion, a resolution was unanimously come to that the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Howorth) should be supported in the proposition to omit all the Licensing Clauses, including Clause 9, which was considered to be the means of carrying out the views of the Temperance Party. What other meetings had taken place, what other decisions had been come to since that meeting at which he was present, he did not know. Armed with the decision of that meeting to which he had referred, he came here to give his most cordial support to the Government in withdrawing Clause 9, as well as the other clauses of the Bill dealing with licensing. He thought it right he should ask the kind indulgence of the Committee in order that he should make this brief statement, because, as a long and consistent advocate of Sunday closing, he entirely agreed with the recollection of the hon. Member for Barrow, and with the statements he had made as to the views of the Temperance Party. None was a more consistent or stronger supporter of Sunday closing than himself; but he desired to see an Imperial measure passed in order to carry out in England the same system that prevailed in Scotland, Ireland, and in Wales, and believing that this clause would not effect that end, he heartily supported the proposition of the Government to strike out Clause 9, as well as the other Licensing Clauses in the Bill.

§ SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY (Northants, S.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had indulged in that peculiar style of argument for which he was so justly celebrated; it used in former times to be called banter, but now-a-days it was called chaff. Personally, he failed to find in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman a single grain of solid reason why this clause should be re- 1602 tained. This clause unquestionably dealt with licensing, and it had been determined by the Government to withdraw the whole of the Licensing Clauses. This clause, therefore, must go with the rest. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) that if Sunday closing was good, and if it was to be adopted, it ought to be adopted for the country as a whole. The divergent decisions of County Councils upon the matter could not be viewed with complacency, and it seemed to him contemptible that hon. Members should endeavour to shift the responsibility of dealing with a complicated and difficult question from themselves to the new County Councils. The main objection he had to this clause was, that it would seriously affect the constitution of the County Councils. The great object they ought to have in view was, to obtain the very best men to serve on the County Councils. There were in many counties, he believed in every county, a certain number of men specially well qualified to transact the business of County Councils. If this clause were struck out, his opinion was that in the great majority of cases these persons would be elected to the Councils. But if this clause were retained, he defied an Archangel from Heaven to bring into relations of amity the teetotallers and the licensed victuallers. Many of the best men in the counties would not offer themselves for election because of the introduction of these questions, and the counties, therefore, would lose the benefit of their valuable services.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)

said, he must ask the Committee to allow him to say a few words in regard to the proposal to withdraw this clause, and with respect to the position in which they found themselves. His right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) put the matter exceedingly clearly before the Committee. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) considered that this clause was a most valuable clause in the Local Government Bill; it was a clause to give the communities of the country an opportunity of getting rid, for one day at least, of the evils of the drink traffic, where public opinion was strongly in favour of that course. He assured the Committee that, notwithstanding the 1603 opposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), he should give the clause his most earnest, most hearty, and most strenuous support. In saying that, he hoped the Committee would understand that he did not support the clause on what was called Sabbatarian grounds. He believed the Sabbath was made for man, and not man made for the Sabbath. He did not believe the Sabbath was made for man to get drunk on. He agreed with the Bishop of Peterborough, who had said that in his opinion every day was the Lord's day, and, therefore, every day they ought to see that order and decorum was carried on. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was quite consistent in this matter. He remembered that very soon after he came into the House there was a Sunday Closing Bill introduced, and he ventured to make a speech upon it, one of the first speeches he ever made in the House. When he sat down, Sir George Grey, who was then Home Secretary, got up and opposed the Bill. Sir George Grey was good enough to say that his (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) was one of the best speeches which had been made upon that occasion, and added that its logical conclusion was that the liquor trade ought not to be stopped on Sunday alone, but on every day. That was exactly what he wanted Sir George Grey to understand; but then it did not follow because he was right and logical that his view was carried or had been carried out. They must always remember the great maxim laid down by Mr. Disraeli, when he said—"We must remember that this country is not governed by logic, but by Parliament." He thought that to carry out the principle of saving the people from the evils of the drink traffic even for a very short time, was right and proper. He should prefer a clause allowing the trade to be stopped on Saturday, because he believed that there was more evil done to working people by drink on the Saturday, when they had money in their pocket. This clause certainly went a little way in the right direction, and he should follow the plan he had always laid down for himself in the House, and he thought it was a right plan—namely, to take what he could get. A good example of that sentiment was afforded by the case of a man who went to be married. When the man was 1604 asked, "Wilt thou have this woman to be thy wedded wife?" he said, "I am willing, but I would rather have had her sister." He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was not like the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine), who would not take either; he was willing to take this clause, although be would much rather take an Imperial Act if it were possible to get it. Now, how did they stand in regard to the history of this clause? When the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) brought in his Bill on the 19th March, he found it necessary to do something in the Bill to meet the general demand which had arisen in the country—to do something in the direction of what was called temperance legislation. What was the meaning of temperance legislation? It had no other meaning except to diminish the temptation to drink; it could have no other meaning, and they had been promised something in that line for years and years past. Right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, as well as those on the other side, had asked them to wait until the Local Government Bill was brought in, and then they would see what they would see. Right hon. Gentlemen had often said they were going to deal with the whole question; he was always suspicious of that. Whenever he heard any Statesman say he was going to deal with the whole question, he always thought he meant that he was going to delay the whole question. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made an attempt to deal with the question—and he gave him credit for his attempt—according to his lights; they were not very good. The right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill, and intimated that he intended to do something in the way of temperance legislation. Now, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had pointed out that temperance legislation meant diminishing the facilities for getting drink. On the 19th of March, however, the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House, and told the temperance men that he was going to do something for them; but then he said, with some show of triumph, that he intended to place the drink sellers on a more secure footing than they were at present. His (Sir Wilfrid Lawson's) friends were at once up in arms, be- 1605 cause every temperance reformer, philanthropist, and worker among the poor had for years past been trying to put the publicans on a less secure footing. The right hon. Gentleman had very temperately stated that the country rose against his scheme, and that he found it impossible to carry it out. The agitation had settled the question of compensation, for this Parliament at any rate; but he begged the Committee to remember that the principle of compensation had never been withdrawn by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite; they were only waiting the opportunity of adopting it; at least they had never said the contrary, and, therefore, temperance men must look sharp after them. He hoped he was not travelling over ground which had been already covered; it certainly was very difficult to say anything fresh upon the matter after the exhaustive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, but let him point out again that this clause had nothing to do with compensation. Remember that it was intended that if this Sunday Closing came into force there should be an equivalent reduction in the duty paid by licence holders. And remember, too, that this clause came in the Bill long before the Compensation Clause. This was a separate clause altogether; it did not deal with licences, but it simply said that when the County Council was appointed it should have the power to deal in a certain way with what it might consider a nuisance. He was not speaking too strongly when he called a public-house a nuisance, because The Edinburgh Review, a most respectable paper, had described the drink traffic as a nuisance, socially, morally, and politically, and the right hon. Gentleman in this clause provided the community with power, through its representatives, to abate the nuisance when they wished to do so. What he had to ask the Government was this. If they considered the County Councils competent to take upon themselves the abatement of nuisances on the 19th of March, what had happened since that they should come here and say they were not now competent to abate nuisances? He thought there was more reason now than there was on the 19th March why the County Council should have this power. Everything had been taken out of the Bill; now it was only a skeleton 1606 Bill, and everybody was wondering what the County Councils would have to do when they were elected. It had got to be a laughing stock; the House devoured a bit of the Bill every day. He had been exercised in his mind to find out why the Government had changed their views upon this matter, and he had come to the conclusion—he did not think it was possible to come to any other conclusion—that they felt obliged to do it because they thought that if they left this clause in the Bill it would tend to the injury of the great drink interest. In order to retain the support of the great drink interest, the Government said—"We will abandon the provision which three months ago we said to be wise and just." He thought that the public were openly in the face of day sacrificed for the publicans. In order that the Government might retain the support of the publicans this Committee was called upon to reject the prayer of the working classes. The Government were about to abandon their own offspring, and refuse the petition of almost all the temperance bodies of the country. Now, his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow quoted some resolutions passed by different bodies. He (Sir Wilfred Lawson) desired to show that even what were called the least extreme temperance bodies were in favour of retaining this clause. For instance, this was what the legislative sub-committee of the Church of England Temperance Society passed some days ago— That this meeting of the legislative subcommittee of the Church of England Temperance Society approves the retention of Clause 9 of the Local Government Bill. Now, he would read a sentence which came afterwards, for the benefit of his hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston). This was the sentence which appeared in The Church of England Temperance Chronicle— In any case it was understood that Members of Parliament could not be bound by any resolution of the sub-committee. What a splendid resolution was it not? They virtually said—"Let us go to war, only let us take care that no soldiers fight. No one else may fight except the people who have no opportunity of doing any good." He had with him a quotation from a speech of Lord Salisbury, but he would not waste the time of the Committee by reading it, because 1607 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had read it at length. It was quite clear, however, that Lord Salisbury laid down the very principle of this clause in the celebrated Newport speech, in which he expounded the policy of the Conservative Party. He supposed that, in spite of all this, hon. Gentlemen opposite would very naturally follow their Leaders. The rank and file of the Tory Party had determined to throw out this clause; they would follow their Leaders, and the Leaders were acting according to the bidding of their masters. This was what happened a few days ago. There was an aggregate meeting of the trade held in St. James's Hall. Lord Burton was in the chair, and this resolution was passed— That this meeting earnestly protests against the Amendment placed on the Paper of the House of Commons by Sir William Harcourt asking for the retention of Clause 9, which introduces the principle of Local Option in respect to Sunday Closing. He had no doubt that no sooner was that resolution passed than it was sent off post haste to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith), and that then he got his marching orders and gave orders to the rank and file as to what they were to do. What Lord Burton and his friends substantially said, was—"Look here, we have assembled 3,000 drink sellers. Does not that compare grandly with all the thousands of rag-tag and bob-tail who assembled in Hyde Park the other day?" The Government agreed, and they said—"We will go for the Basses, and not for the masses." Now, he had done with hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, to whom he gave every credit for their motives, but there were other people in the House beside Tories. He had seen it stated, he believed correctly, that there were in the House 57 Liberal Unionists and Tories who had supported in some shape or other Sunday closing, and among them were his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Caine) and his hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). He would not say anything about the hon. Member for South Tyrone, because he was not present; he was down in the Isle of Thanet supporting Mr. James Lowther in the interests of true temperance. He wondered his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow did not 1608 go with the hon. Gentleman; he thought that if they had both gone the Gladstonians would have won the election for a certainty. But what was the fight in the Isle of Thanet? Why, it was the old fight, the old issue, the National Church and the national beverage against national justice and national morality. If the hon. Member for South Tyrone was as successful as he wished to be with his promising temperance candidate, next week he would return, bringing his sheaves with him, and rejoicing the hearts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and of the Bishops and of the Basses, and of the rest of them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow had not gone down to Thanet; but he had stayed at home to write letters. The hon. Gentleman said, in his letter to The Times— If this clause becomes law, it will undoubtedly be considered a final settlement of the Sunday Closing controversy, so far as Parliament is concerned, until it has had a fair trial throughout the country. Who were going to consider it a final settlement? Not he; that was not his policy; he believed in no final settlement until justice was done. His policy was the policy of the old Scotch Member, who said to his son, when he asked what he was to do when he got into the House—"Tak a' ye can, and be aye complainin' ye canna get mair." Then in this wonderful and historical letter, the hon. Member went on— If the Government will give an honest and workable opportunity to Mr. Stevenson to take a Division on the second reading of that Bill, by which the Temperance Party has always stood, that Party will act wisely in its own interests to let this dubious 9th clause go by, and endeavour to get such a majority on Mr. Stevenson's Bill as will secure its passing into law next Session. Next Session! Where did the hon. Gentleman expect to be next Session? [Mr. CAINE: Here.] Then, again, he went on— We are asked by Sir William Harcourt to abandon those proposals for Imperial Sunday Closing. Nothing of the kind. They might be asked, but they would not accept it; they simply would accept this as an instalment. There was a great difference between a compromise and an instalment, and he thanked the Government very 1609 heartily for this instalment. Further, the hon. Member said— For myself, I intend to stand by Imperial Sunday Closing, and let the whole of the Government proposals in regard to licensing go into limbo together. And then, having exhausted his English, the hon. Member turned to Latin. He quoted two Latin sentences; one he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not understand; the other one he did, because it was one of the oldest established quotations. It was, "Ti-meo—or Tim-eo"—[Laughter.] He was quite prepared to admit that although he could read the sentence, he could not pronounce it. He believed the translation was—[Cries of "Read."] Well, he would try again—Timeo Dances, et dona ferentes." It was, at any rate, a very good quotation, and very applicable in many cases. He knew very little Latin; but he knew two words, and, after reading the letter, he was disposed to say, with reference to the hon. Member for Barrow, "Cave canem"—beware of him indeed! What did all this mean? What did all this talk about taking a vote on the second reading of the Sunday Closing Bill mean? There was no pledge to carry that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was a wily man. He was not to be drawn by him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) the other night. The right hon. Gentleman said—"I must wait and see what I shall see." He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) knew perfectly well what he should see. The hon. Member for Barrow was reckoning without his host when he talked about getting the Bill through the House; there was another Body to be reckoned with—the irremovables. His hon. Friend the Member for Barrow knew as well as he did that it was part of the very religion of "another place" to provide drinking facilities for the people on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman had given up a certainty—it would have been a certainty if the hon. Member and his Friends had voted for the clause—for a shadowy promise of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). Now, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) looked upon this night as a great night in the history of the temperance movement. For the first time in the history of that movement they had one of the leading men of the real Liberal Party getting up at that Bench, and in an able speech 1610 making a movement in the direction of real temperance. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, he remembered what his right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) said many years ago at a meeting he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) attended. He had never forgotten it. The right hon. Gentleman said— It is written, and the writing cannot be effaced, that the Liberal Party must become the Temperance Party, and to-day they saw, for the first time, a promise of the fulfilment of that prophecy. If—because right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench did not go so far as he could wish them to go—he were to upbraid them because they were not up to his mark, he could not conceive a course more silly, more senseless, or more suicidal. Did not his hon. Friend know the maxim in the House, never lose a stage, because if you lose a stage of a Bill the chances are that you will never see it again. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that a clause in the hand was worth any number of Bills in the bush. If he could believe that this proceeding, this piece of tactics on the part of hon. Gentlemen, was taken with the desire, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby hinted, that they might have an opportunity of seeming to be voting for temperance while they were really taking care it was not carried, he should think the manœuvre was clumsy and contemptible. But he did not make such a charge against them, because he knew the Unionist Party were pre-eminently men of honour. He never read their speeches without thinking that they were honourable men above all honourable men who had ever lived, and that they were going through a species of martyrdom in defence of principle, because these high-minded men sat here night after night, surrounded by Radicals and assassins, which they could only do because they were prompted by the highest sense of duty. That being the case, he was sure that they were taking a most honourable course; and all he said was, that their innocence of the ways of the world and their ignorance of the habits and proceedings of this House was perfectly appalling. He asked them, even now, to take a wiser, and more considerate, 1611 and more patriotic course; he asked them to listen to the entreaties of their fellow-countrymen that something should be done to mitigate the great curse of drink. He asked them to listen more to those entreaties than to the ukase of Lord Burton at St. James's Hall. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)—he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten them in this debate—spoke noble words at a great meeting held at a time when the right hon. Gentleman and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) tried to do right together. The right hon. Gentleman said— It is the right of the community to have absolute control over a trade which directly affects their moral, social, and physical interests. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to say now that these County Councils should not have even the limited power of control which was proposed in this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman also said in that speech— A priest-ridden nation is a nation very much to be pitied, but a publican-ridden nation is a nation very much to be despised. If he might give the right hon. Gentleman a little bit of advice, he would say that if a statesman despised a publican-ridden nation, it was just possible that the nation might despise a publican-ridden statesman. He thanked the Committee for having heard him so patiently, and he had only to say, in conclusion, that he believed that they would be only taking a wise and moderate and prudent step, if they retained this clause in the Bill, and thus entrusted the English communities with that power of getting rid on the "best of days of the worst of trades," a power which was now enjoyed by the people of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

§ SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)

said, he should not have risen to take part in the debate if it had not been for the reference the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had just made to the resolution which was passed by the legislative sub-committee of the Church of England Temperance Society. He understood the hon. Baronet to state that there was a large number of Members of Parliament present at the meeting at which that resolution was passed. As a matter of fact, there were only seven persons present, of those only three 1612 were Members of Parliament; the resolution, too, was only passed by a majority of one, four voting for it and three against it. That, he thought, completely answered the argument of the hon. Baronet founded upon that resolution. He was quite free to admit that the Church of England Temperance Society, if it was consulted as a body, would probably be divided upon the desirability of retaining this clause as compared with the desirability of supporting the general measure introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson). But, as a matter of fact, he might state that that Society had never hesitated in supporting the general measure for Sunday closing, in opposition to any measure of Local Option, or any measure leaving the question to the Local Authorities to decide. In the opinion of that society, a general measure was very preferable to any measure which would act within a small area. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) to state that, in his opinion, the better area would be even such a small area as the parish. That was his opinion, but it never had been the opinion of the Church of England Temperance Society, for they believed that as they limited the area for Sunday closing they would increase the difficulties which would arise in the carrying out of the Act, and they would increase the number of scandals against the Temperance cause on the borders of that limited area. Frequent references had been made in the House to the scandals which occurred on the Sunday upon the border line between England and Wales. In Scotland, of course, there was no difficulty, because the border line there was a very small one, and the whole Kingdom of Scotland was under one law. There Sunday closing had acted well, and produced most favourable results. He regretted very much that the opportunity which had been presented to the house by the Government for dealing with Sunday closing in any fashion, and more especially in connection with the other valuable clauses of the Bill dealing with the Licensing Question, should be lost. He would not analyze the various causes which had contributed to that result, but, as one good reason was quite as good as 50, he thought that the want of time—the great amount of time which 1613 would have been occupied in discussing the Licensing Clauses to the detriment of the other parts of the Bill—was quite a sufficient reason for the Government withdrawing these clauses altogether. He did not wish to stand in the way of the Division, but he felt it his duty to state the exact position of matters with regard to the resolution of the Church of England Temperance Society. If, however, there had been an opportunity, he should have liked to have made some other remarks upon various other points bearing on the question.

§ MR. W. P. SINCLAIR (Falkirk)

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), in his very able and interesting speech, asked a question which was at least deserving of an answer. The hon. Baronet asked what had happened to make the Government change their mind as to the competency of the County Councils to deal with the question of Local Option? Something had happened. It was well known that the Government had been urged to and had withdrawn the whole of the Licensing Clauses. That was the reason why the County Councils were incompetent to deal with the question of Local Option. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was in the habit of astonishing the House by his observations; but he doubted whether the right hon. Gen-leman had ever given the House more cause for astonishment than to-day, when he said that the 9th clause was not a Licensing clause. Why, Sunday closing involved the reduction of a seven days' licence to a six days' licence, and therefore, whatever might be said as to the merit or demerit of Sunday closing, it could not be said that a clause dealing with the subject was not a licensing clause. The hon. Baronet would not dispute the fact that he and those with whom he acted, had very strongly urged the Government to withdraw the Licensing Clauses. Of course the opposition of hon. Gentlemen was mainly directed against the Compensation Clauses.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON

asked that he might be allowed to put the hon. Gentleman right. If the hon. Gentleman referred to the speech he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) made on the second reading of the Bill, he would find that 1614 he distinctly stated that if the Compensation Clauses were left out he should not be able to find fault with the Licensing Clauses.

§ MR. W. P. SI