from five till nine o'clock for the sale of liquors for consumption off the premises. He (Mr. Labouchere), however, was of opinion that, if public houses were opened at all, it would be a mistake to forbid drinking on the premises. Even if they were successful in enforcing such a law, let them contemplate the state on a Sunday evening of Hampstead Heath and other localities in the suburbs, when persons would bring ardent spirits with them, and consume them in the open air.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN rose to order, and asked if it was competent for the hon. Member to discuss an Amendment which was not then before the House?

MR. SPEAKER ruled that the hon. Member was in order.

an

MR. LABOUCHERE said, it was desirable that the House should know before going to a division whether such Amendment would be accepted by the promoters of the Bill. Unless they did so he hoped the House would stop the further progress of the measure.

The real question before the House was hon. Gentleman proposed to move in Comwhether the State had the right to pre-mittee that public-houses should be opened vent the innocent use of alcoholic bever- on Sundays from one till three o'clock and ages in order to put an end to their injurious use. He was opposed to all sumptuary laws, and he thought by passing this Bill they would be setting an exceedingly bad example to the next Parliament by reversing the policy pursued of late years with regard to those prohibitory Acts. A law that was passed in advance of public opinion was entirely inoperative. Hon. Gentlemen who were in favour of prohibitive laws for the sale of intoxicating liquors frequently quoted the example of America; but what had been the experience of America upon that subject? In Massachusetts public opinion had changed, and a Select Committee of the State Legislature had reported against the Maine Liquor Law, because it led to the opening of secret drinking-places, and increased drunkenness. The chief of the police at Boston represented that in 1854, the year before the adoption of the Maine Liquor Law, the number of known places where liquors were sold was 1,500, and that in 1866 they had increased to 1,515, whilst the number of drunkards had increased from 6,983 to 15,543 within the same period. And what reason was there to doubt that the same results would follow in this country? It might be desirable to have some alteration in the existing law, but he disagreed with the proposed plan. Drunkenness might be much diminished by altering the licensing system, and if the promoters of this movement were to make the licensed victuallers their allies rather than their enemies they would very soon put an end to that vice. The interests of the licensed victuallers were bound up in sobriety. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but it was so. Any man could get drunk in his own house or in that of his neighbour, and neither of them could be punished; but if a publican permitted drunkenness on his premises he ran the risk of losing his license and of being ruined. No doubt there were disreputable publicans, but the respectable portion were not to be condemned on that ground. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had informed him that he proposed to move an Amendment in Committee if the Bill was read a second time, and he (Mr. Labouchere) wished to know if the promoters of the Bill would accept it, because it would have a material effect on the votes of hon. Members that afternoon. The

MR. HIBBERT said, he felt considerable difficulty on this subject. He could not support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), because it opposed all change; neither could he agree with the Bill of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith). The best course was to proceed upon the old road, and allow liquor to be sold for consumption, on or off the premises, on Sunday, but he thought the hours should be from one o'clock to half-past two, and from half-past four until nine. During those hours the working-men would be able to get all the refreshment they required, whether upon their excursions or after attending church, funerals, or christenings; and the public-houses would be shut before the time when drunkenness usually began to take place. The Government ought to agree to put a clause into any Bill of this kind to enable publicans, should they desire to do so, to take out a six days' license, for which they should pay a less sum than for the usual license; and he believed that if this proposal were adopted a large number of licensed victuallers would gladly avail themselves of the alternative thus offered them. This plan had answered well in the case of cab licenses. A great objection to the Bill was that it proposed to deal differently with

the metropolis and the country generally. I wise recommendation made by his hon. Drink with meals was as requisite in one Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. place as in the other; but as the Bill was Hibbert). There were many reasons which, drawn it would interfere with bonâ fide in his opinion, warranted the reference of travellers in the country. There never the subject to a Committee of Inquiry. could be a better time than the present for His hon. Friend who had introduced the effecting some change in the law upon the measure very judiciously, appeared to found subject. There was a strong feeling his arguments in its support upon the favour among the working classes in the country with which he believed it was regarded by in favour of a further restriction on the the working classes of the country. For sale of liquors on Sunday, but, at the same his own part, he must confess that, however time there was great objection to this Bill. much such a measure might be favoured He would have no objection, however, to by the chairmen of benches of magistrates the Bill being read a second time, upon the and the chiefs of municipal bodies, and understanding that it should then be re- other persons in authority, he should look ferred to a Select Committee, and he with great suspicion upon any movement hoped that this suggestion would receive for restrictive measures of this sort, if that the approbation of the hon. Members for movement were confined to the members Southwark and Middlesex. of the upper and middle classes; and he was certainly, though it might sound somewhat paradoxical, unwilling to do good to the working classes against their will. It appeared to him, therefore, to be very important that the promoters and opponents of the Bill should have an opportunity, if they felt disposed, to bring forward eridence as to the real feelings of the working

MR. GLADSTONE said, he regarded tho question before the House as one that was calculated to show whether Parliament was willing to make an onward step in the regulation of the liquor traffic on Sundays. Ile did not think that there was any principle so strictly defined in the Bill as to bind them, if they voted for the secoud reading, to anything more than a willing-classes upon such a measure as the present ness to consider whether they could with equity to all parties impose further restrictions on the liquor traffic. There was one observation which he had heard made to which he wished to offer a reply. It was contended that the condition of the country already exhibited a great improvement with respect to drunkenness, and that we ought to be satisfied with that improvement; but he doubted whether the improvement, which certainly was perceptible in many quarters, was uniform throughout the whole country. A very intelligent deputation, composed almost entirely of working men, who had waited upon him from Lancashire had urged-and in their arguments they were supported by the evidence of the police authorities-that the improvement in that great community was not such as had been stated, and, he believed, truly stated, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark as the general rule. Independently of that, however, even if drunkenness was decreasing, it still remained one of the greatest scandals, disgraces, and misfortunes of the country; and he did not think that Parliament was bound to refrain from making war against it, simply because, on the whole, it was on the decline. He trusted that in any case the Government would give their assent to the second reading of the Bill after the

one. He was inclined to believe that the general opinion in the North of England was in favour of some measure of the kind, but there might be a difference of opinion in other parts of the country. If the ge neral opinion of the working classes could be obtained there was so much sympathy among that class in respect to measures which affected them that such an opinion must exercise a very strong influence upon the House. Another question upon which they might perhaps be enabled by this means to arrive at a valuable conclusion was, whether it might or might not be wise to introduce the principle of local le gislation, power being given to the local authorities in modes which the law might specify, so as to adapt the application of principles to circumstances. He must also venture to endorse, as far as he might, the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham with reference to the six days licenses. That was a question which, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had had occasion to consider with reference to the cab trade, and the principle was one which he believed could not, in this case, be regarded as unreasonable. The distinction had, he believed, so far as it had been sp plied, been found to work in a most satis factory manner, and the grounds which existed for its adoption in the case of cabs

were much stronger in the case of public- | mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman houses. He trusted that the suggestion contemplated such a step; for the right which had been made by his hon. Friend hon. Gentleman was far too wise and far would reconcile in a great degree the di- too well acquainted with men's characters versities of opinion which existed in the and the way to deal with them ever to have House, and which threatened to occupy entertained any such stupid notion. The the whole of the afternoon in the discussion Maine Liquor law had been carried by of the subject. Every consideration of fanaticism in America, and that fanaticism equity would be on the side of such a plan; had found friends in this country. His because it was but fair that a man who hon. Friend the Member for Chichester was prepared to forego his trade profits on might not intend to lend himself to such a Sundays should not be charged so much result; but when his hon. Friend fainted on for his license as he who did not. He re- the way, others would be found ready and joiced to witness the conciliatory spirit in willing to take his place. He should be which the supporters of the Bill were pre- glad to know if this was really the way to pared to receive the suggestions of oppo- deal with the working classes. The House nents, and he could not doubt that if the had handed over the government of the hon. Member consented to send the Bill to country to the working classes, and now a Select Committee the Government would they appeared to think that the working agree to the second reading. classes were incapable of governing themselves, and that a Bill must be brought in to prevent a man from going wrong, when he knew he was going wrong, because he had himself not the courage or the power to prevent it. The distinction in the application of the Bill to London and the country arose, as the hon. Member for Chichester himself admitted, from the fact that the interest of the licensed victuallers was stronger in the metropolis than it was elsewhere. What, however, would be the effect of the Bill upon the working classes of London? A working man in London, who was employed in labour from Monday morning to Saturday night in occupations which he pursued steadily, quietly, and soberly in a darkened atmosphere, might reasonably wish to go into the country on Sundays, where in the company of his wife and family he could enjoy the blessing of fresh air. But Gentlemen connected with the movement advocated by his hon. Friend opposed this, and wished the working men to remain in the almost pestilent atmosphere of London rather than, as they called it, desecrate the Sabbath. He (Mr. Roebuck) could see no desecration of the Sabbath-or the Sunday, for he did not like to hear it called the Sabbath-in a man's going into the fields to breathe the fresh air and to contemplate the great works of God. That was no desecration in the mind of a civilized or educated man; but it was a desecration in the mind of the ascetics who proposed this Bill. Was it good legislation to say to a man, "You shall not have your beer," and could anyone doubt that it was this which, though not expressed, was in their minds in framing this measure? It would be said that a

MR. ROEBUCK desired to compliment his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith) in not following the example of persons who had on former occasions introduced similar Bills, by assuming to himself a monopoly of righteousness and goodness. He felt bound, at the same time, to remark that his hon. Friend, in accusing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) of opposing the Bill on personal and politic grounds, was using an argument which might be employed with equal force against himself. It must, however, be perfectly clear that they all had the same end in view; for every man worthy the name of a Member of that House desired to contribute all in his power to the decrease of drunkenness, and the only difference was as to the means of suppressing it. He contended that every attempt to go further than the present law would fail to effect that object. It was only a few years since that they were told to be guided by experience; and there was a finger always pointing across the Atlantic, where the Maine Liquor Law was said to have conferred such incalculable benefits upon the American people. He would, however, boldly assert-and he knew that nobody could disprove it-that that law had been an utter failure. His hon. Friend said that the Maine Liquor Law was a measure which he did not approve. That might be so now, but did not everything that surrounded the Bill go to show that it was intended as an introduction to some such legislation? He had heard an observation which fell from the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone,) He did not for one moment

that man.

working man could go into the country different schools, and that the children on Sundays because there were plenty of even had been asked to sign? It had been railroads by which he might travel. That said that the licensed victuallers had an was true, but as soon as a working man interest in the question. Well, so they got into the country he would be subjected had. But what was their power compared to all the inconveniences of this measure. with that of the landowners and clergySupposing him to have taken with him his men? The clergyman of the parish-whose wife and family and his basket of pro-knowledge of politics was not equal to his visions, but to have forgotten his bottle knowledge of theology-called at the cotcontaining his pint or quart of beer-and tage in the absence of the husband, and if there were six children besides himself found at home the wife and the children, and his wife a quart would not be too much; and he learned that when the husband had there were hon. Gentlemen near him who been drinking he came home and beat his could drink a good deal more-he would wife, beat his child, and beat his dog. find that he could obtain no beer, and he" Then," asked the clergyman, are you must go to the next river and drink water. not opposed to drunkenness ?" "Oh, yes, He (Mr. Roebuck) would ask, did his hon. I am.' "Then," said the clergyman, Friend himself drink water on Sundays?" sign this petition;" so she signed the When passing by his club on Sunday, petition, under the impression that it was did he not go in and read Punch and take his glass of sherry? It was wonderful how good we could be for other people. Did anybody say that that was not a true picture? He should like to see The picture was a true one and a very plain one. Now, the House should remember that they were on the eve of an election in which great political power was to be placed in the hands of the working classes of the country. Was that, then, a time when a Bill of this character should be brought in-a Bill greatly affect ing their interests, but upon which they had no opportunity of expressing an opinion? But it was contended that the Bill had been largely petitioned for. What were the facts? The Returns of the number of petitions and their signatures had been published up to the 13th of that month, and it appeared that 200,000 persons had signed petitions in favour of the Bill dur-ently to know that; by legislating in the ing the present Session of Parliament petitions that had been in course of signature for the last six months. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Nine months.] Well, say nine months. But those who had been working against this Bill had only been working for three weeks, and he was told that the signatures they had procured numbered nearly 500,000. Yet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chichester came forward and called himself the representative of the whole of the working classes. The organizers of petitions in favour of the Bill began, moreover, by asserting that they would not accept the signature of any one below sixteen years of age. Did the hon. Member for Chichester believe that promise had been adhered to? Was it not a fact that the petitions had been taken into the

to put an end to drunkenness. The petitions presented that day were signed, with out exception, by men-men upon whom, for the most part, they had lately conferred the franchise, and whom they had only recently admitted to a share in the Government of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire proposed that the matter should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. He (Mr. Roebuck had listened to the arguments which had heen employed with reference to the appointment of a Commission on another question; and in that case the Commission was objected to because, it was said, it was a pretext for delaying legislation. He could not recognize a different principle in the present case. The right hon. Gentleman was a sufficiently able legislator to know what to do. He had studied the nature of mankind suffici

direction of this measure, we should be landing ourselves, as the people of New England had landed themselves, upon the barren rock of the Maine Liquor Law. One word to the Government. He would ask them to be bold in their generation. They had already done things at which they looked with something like shuddering. They need be under no alarm for the hon. Gentleman's millions, because they would on examination be found to dwindle to next to nothing. And he would remind hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who feared the influence of their conduct in this matter on their future elections, that the organization of the licensed victuallers was superior to the organization of the hon. Gentleman's Friends. It must not be for gotten that the present Bill was but the