there should be a place like Devonport, | vented from doing so, and that, too, on where, according to his hon. and learned the premises. A grocer was placed in a Friend's (Mr. M. Chambers') statement, different position with regard to the the public drank nothing. They had taking out of a licence to a licensed no public-houses, no beer-in fact, he victualler, and that point was one which might say, "no nothing." Certainly would require more consideration in that must be a place in which it was not Committee. There was another objecdesirable for anybody to live. But his tion to the Bill. For the first time an hon. and learned Friend goes to Devon- ordinary policeman would have power port-[Mr. M. CHAMBERS: What I said given to him to interfere in a publican's was, that publicans had no political in- business which he should never be enfluence.] His hon. and learned Friend trusted with; but that, too, might be said that publicans had no influence provided against in Committee. In conthere. He (Mr. Locke) did not suppose clusion, he begged to express a hope that trading publicans had greater in- that they would get rid entirely of this fluence there than other people; but question, which had caused so much there must be a good many of them in uneasiness and given so much offence to Devonport, and he presumed their votes a very large and most respectable body were as good as anybody else's, and if of men such as the licensed victuallers. they gave a man a vote so much the better for the person who got it. There were points in the Bill which he thought must be remedied, and he had given Notice to bring the question before the House in Committee. He thought some of the clauses in the Bill were rather harsh. One of them was particularly so. It was said that where any offence had been committed in a public-house, the publican was to be taken before a magistrate, and the magistrate was to convict him, and whatever the offence might be it was to be endorsed on the license. There were a great many offences in the category. very slight offences indeed. Supposing a game at cards were played, and the publican could not prevent it, yet it might be recorded on his license. He therefore thought that the magistrate ought to have some discretion in the matter given to him, or that provision ought to be altogether expunged from the Bill. He thought the hours which public-houses were allowed to be open as provided in the Bill were not sufficient. At night there were a number of persons for whom it was positively necessary that public-houses should be open. Therefore to lay down one strict rule was altogether out of the question. He was certainly anxious that this point in the Bill should undergo revision. For his own part, he did not think that the hours that they had at present were too long. A good deal had been said in the course of the debate about licensed victuallers and grocers. Now, it must be remembered that the great bulk of the grocers sold liquors at a time when the publicans were pre

MR. D. DALRYMPLE, though unable to agree with his hon. and learned Friend that this Bill was overladen with honey, was glad to see it introduced. He hoped, however, that the hours for closing public-houses would be rendered uniform. So far from his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. M. Chambers) having proved the necessity of keeping public-houses open in London to a very late hour, he thought he had proved the extreme desirability of closing places of amusement and public-houses at an earlier hour. He thought it would be an improvement if theatres and publichouses were closed at 11 instead of 12. It would be very difficult for him to answer the question why public-houses in Leeds and Bristol should be closed at 11 when public-houses in London were allowed to be open till 12. He entirely agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had said with regard to grocers' licenses. The practice of selling intoxicating liquors in grocers' shops was increasing in this country, and if the House was going to put a heavy hand upon licensed victuallers he thought a heavier hand ought to be put upon grocers, and that steps should be taken to ascertain what was going on in grocers' shops. These matters he hoped would be discussed in Committee.

MR. DODSON congratulated the Home Secretary upon having introduced a "smooth-going" Bill, as his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. M. Chambers) had described it. Hitherto this question had been discussed with an earnestness and a zeal which were

Home Secretary had certainly had more | system. He had a great desire that this

than his share of trouble in bringing it forward.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE congratulated the Home Secretary on the reception the Bill had met with from both sides of the House, it being supported by the hon. Baronets the Members for West Essex (Sir Henry SelwinIbbetson) and Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The hours of opening and closing would require consideration, and he objected to the adoption of the term, not before used in Acts of Parliament, of "intoxicating liquors." A gentleman who took a glass of wine did not take a glass of intoxicating liquor, though if he took too many glasses he found it intoxicating. Intoxicating meant not only drunk-making but poisonous, and was a term of reproach more fitly used by the supporters of the Permissive Bill, just as the Peace Society might call a Gun Bill "a Bill for the Licensing of Murderous Weapons." He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would alter the title of the Bill.

question should be settled. If it were left unsettled, it would give rise to a great deal of ill-feeling in all parts of the country, and there would be always a number of fanatics led by an honest man like the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who would be agitating on the question.

MR. PIM trusted that the words " or Ireland" would be omitted in the 2nd clause.

MR. BATES denied a statement that at the last election for Plymouth the contest had been between the Permissive men and the publicans. Such a statement was contrary to the fact. If there was a fight it was whether Plymouth should be represented or misrepresented in this House. The Permissive men were nearly all Dissenters and Liberals, and he had declared himself a Conservative and a Churchman.

MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had complained that the Bill was not comprehensive enough, and suggested various modes for enlarging its scope. The Government had dealt with that portion of the subject which they thought most pressing, leaving the question of the consolidation of the Acts to be dealt with at a more convenient season. The details of the Bill which had been criticized by the hon. Baronet would receive his attention. The hon. Members for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) and Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther) appeared by their remarks to have forgotten that the changes proposed related not to the renewal of old, but to the granting of new licenses. The hon. and learned Member opposite had objected to the Bill on the ground that it contained no provision for limiting the number of public-houses; but the Bill was drawn on the principle that as long as publichouses were well managed, it was not the duty of Parliament to reduce the number of those establishments. The duty of the Government was to maintain order and not to restrict the sup

MR. COLLINS congratulated the House upon the Conservative reaction which had set in. After having confiscated the property of the Irish Church and the Irish landowners, the Government had brought in a Bill to confiscate the property of the English publicans. The English people, however willing they might have been to tolerate confiscation of property in Ireland as being an exceptional country, were not willing to see it carried out in England, and, consequently, the Government Bill of last Session had no chance of passing. The Government having learnt wisdom by experience, and having found that the present Parliament was likely to become Conservative before it died a natural death, had thrown over their former Bill, and had introduced the present measure, which he believed to be, upon the whole, a very good one, and one which was likely to pass. As to the question of the hours for closing publichouses, he thought it might be safely left to the discretion of the magistrates, because no two towns or villages were pre-ply of liquor to the public. Every cisely the same as to their circumstances, and "a hard-and-fast-line, as proposed in the Bill, would not work well. This Bill would be much sounder if the hours during which public-houses ought to be closed were framed upon a more elastic

measure which was framed for the purpose of limiting the number of publichouses must have the effect of establishing a monopoly with its attendant evils.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY rose to Order. As no Amendment had been

moved, the right hon. Gentleman was | or Roman Catholics might object; or it not justified in entering into questions might be a Roman Catholic school, in which might be much better discussed which case Protestants would object. in Committee. The right hon. Gentle- And yet the clause was compulsory in man ought not to avail himself, in a case its character. of this kind, of a privilege which would be denied to a private Member. Motion agreed to.

MR. BRUCE said, that not desiring unnecessarily to raise a debate on the religious difficulty, he would withdraw the sub-section; but should insist on the Bill read a second time and committed omission of the words he had proposed for Tuesday next. should be struck out.

"Attend a school which the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education have recognized as giving efficient elementary education to the children of the district, or, if there be no school in the district which has been so recognized or no school so recognized in which there is room, then any elementary school in the district," and insert, as a fresh sub-section

"Where in England or Scotland there is within two miles, measured according to the nearest road, from the residence of such boy, or the mine in which he works, a school which is for the time being in receipt of a Grant out of moneys provided by Parliament, or which is for the time being recognized by the Committee of the Privy Council on Education as giving efficient elementary education, and which the boy can attend, such school, unless the teacher is disqualified under this Act, shall alone be deemed to be a

school for the purposes and within the meaning

of this Act."

"The following regulations shall apply to every boy of 10 and under 12 years of age employed below ground in any mine to which this Act applies."-(Mr. F. S. Powell.)

Clause 11 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).

MR. BROWN moved an Amendment in the clause to prevent the employment of girls under 16 on the pitbanks, where they were at present employed in company with married men. The practice had decreased somewhat in Northumberland and Durham, but was in full force in other districts, especially Staffordshire and Dorsetshire. As the Bill would still allow women above 16 to be employed, the proposal must be regarded as moderate, and there was no question it would produce valuable results.

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, line 11, after the word "effect," and before sub-section 1, to insert the words "No female child or female young person shall be so employed.”—(Mr. Alexander Brown.)

MR. RODEN said, that this question had been already fully discussed and disposed of, and it was taking up the MR. STAPLETON did not oppose the time of the House needlessly to discuss omission of the words; but if the sub-it again. A Committee, and also the section which it was proposed to substi- Inspectors, had expressed their opinion tute were pressed, he must challenge against any interference with this kind the judgment of the House upon it. of labour. The persons who were themHe objected to it on the ground that it selves in this work were of a similar might involve compulsory attendance at opinion. It was desirable, instead of a school to which the parents objected on limiting, that they should increase, if the ground of religion. It might be a possible, the employments open to Church school, in which case Dissenters women. Mr. Gathorne Hardy

MR. CANDLISH reminded the hon. | and girls had to work in factories, and Member that the Amendment did not there was nothing more demoralizing in refer to the employment of women, but work outside a pit than in work in other only to the employment of females be- places. tween the ages of 10 and 16, whom it was the duty of the Legislature to protect in every way possible. He trusted that the Government would accept the Amendment.