contained so many things objectionable. | other Commissioners, lands vested in For instance, no one could deny that greater publicity with regard to the management of public land was desirable; but the 23rd clause gave too much inquisitorial power to the overseer whom it was proposed to appoint; and it never could have been expected that the House would pass the next clause, which gave him power to purchase land on public account, and to pay for it with any money in the hands of the Charity Commissioners, without regard to the locality or particular charity to which such money belonged. Anything more inconsistent he could not conceive. He did not think it desirable that wherever laxity existed they should be called upon to appoint a public officer to remedy the shortcomings of local authorities. The Charity Commissioners had power to undertake investigations, if set in motion by an expression of local opinion; and the misfortune was, that sufficient interest was not taken in the management of public property. If the Bill were capable of Amendment in Committee, he would vote for it; but, with all the crudities and inconsistencies there were on the face of it, he was obliged to oppose it. MR. LEEMAN said, he hoped none of the hon. Gentlemen whose names were on the back of the Bill had anything to do with the drafting of it, for it seemed as if the object of the draftsman had been to take care that there should be no connection between the Preamble and the enactments. Even the title was a delusion and a snare. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE said, the promoters of the Bill were not responsible for the printed title, because that which they furnished to the House printers was "Public Lands and Commons Bill." MR. LEEMAN continued by saying that the full title was no better than the shorter one. He asked the House to listen to the wholesale character of the Bill. From the title, as furnished by the hon. Baronet, and the speech which he had made, it would be supposed that it referred mainly to the common lands of the country; but when the 1st clause came to be explained by the interpretation clause, it was found that the Bill applied to all lands under the superintendence of Parliament, under the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Public Works, the Ecclesiastical or any corporation or trustees, or any other person or persons, for ecclesiastical, collegiate, municipal, charitable, or other public uses or purposes, or held in perpetuity for any use not private. Well, that was about the most modest proposition that he had ever heard in that House. The hon. Gentleman proposed that an overseer be appointed for every 200 square miles to take charge of all the public lands within that area. As a member of a municipal body, and speaking, he was sure, the sentiments of the other municipal bodies of the country, he did not ask the interference of the hon. Baronet in reference to the management of the property belonging to those Bodies; and of all the propositions he had ever heard, that which asked that an overseer should be appointed to take under his control the whole of the public lands, including the ecclesiastical lands of this country, was the most extraordinary. He must tell the hon. Baronet that the land managed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been well managed by them, and no overseer of the hon. Baronet's appointing would manage it better than it was managed now. The municipalities which had large landed property, such as Liverpool and Leeds, and many other large towns, had never asked for this Socialistic Bill. It was a great mistake to say that there was no publicity in reference to the management of the property aimed at by the Bill, and the hon. Gentlemen who drew it up could have known nothing whatever of the mode in which public property was managed. It had been said there were abuses with regard to charity lands. Well, there was already a tribunal to which to appeal; there was a body of Charity Commissioners, who had dealt with these abuses in a great many instances, and the hon. Member could surely never have read the Reports of the Charity Commissioners to that House. If he had, the hon. Member would have found that those Commissioners had stated in their last Report that they could act only when put in motion by local action, and that it would be desirable that they have power of their own motion to investigate abuses. Again, let the House look at the power which this overseer was to have over the property of the whole public bodies of the sons who brought forward a very serious and important and interesting subject in a manner, to say the least, so very illjudged. The preservation of open spaces for the enjoyment of the people and the maintenance of rights of way were matters which it was creditable to bring before, and which in themselves were well To country. He was to be steward, receiver of rents, and manager of the whole estates over his 200 square miles. He was to have a commission, the amount of which was left blank in the Bill. He was to have charge of the whole of the properties, and he was to have power, without asking the authority of the particular locality, to purchase any land which in his judg-worthy of, the attention of the Legisment was for the benefit of the existing property of the trust, and he was to pay for it out of the Government or other securities held in trust for any charity or charities under the provisions of the Trusts Act of 1853. One could not conceive that any person could make such a monstrous proposition as that the overseer should purchase land, and pay for it out of charity funds belonging to somebody else. In short, the whole Bill was so full of these extraordinary propositions that, with very great deference to the two hon. and learned Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury bench (the Home Secretary and the Attorney General), he wondered they had had the patience to listen for such a length of time to the discussion; and that they had not risen long ago to put their foot on the Bill, which was one of the most monstrous, in his judgment, that could have been proposed to the House of Commons. The powers in the body of the Bill did not carry out the Preamble, so far as it purported to give to the working classes facilities for the purchase of small quantities of land, but really went to tie up all public property in the hands of this new creation of the hon. Baronet-this notable overseer. He could not but regard the Bill as a phantom which would in no way benefit the working classes, and as a measure which the House ought at once to reject as utterly mischievous and unworkable. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that after the pointed appeal which had been made to the Treasury bench he could not remain longer silent. He would, therefore, try the endurance of the House no longer, though he should have regretted to have risen earlier and deprived the House of the enjoyment of listening to the speech just made. He very much regretted that the hon. Baronet and those who were associated with him had thought fit to bring forward such a crude, idle, and destructive measure before the House. He did not feel any political or party gratitude to perMr. Leeman lature; but it only brought discredit on The of the county rates. There were other | were again to consider the question, objections to the Bill which he need not they would not bring downstairs such a enumerate. The measure had evidently Resolution as that, for it was the general been very little considered by its pro- conviction that further restrictive legismoters, and had been produced in such lation was imperatively needed. There an unworkmanlike shape, that the Go- was abundant evidence of the desire on vernment could not allow it to be read a the part of the public at large for the second time, closing of the public-houses and beerhouses on Sundays. They heard it emphatically expressed by the magistrates, by the ministers of religion, and by the people at large. Nay, more, there was a strong feeling in favour of it among the keepers of public-houses themselves. He would not say the majority of them were in favour of it; but, at all events, he would say that there were as many in favour of it as were opposed to it. There were, however, some hon. Members who said that, however desirable the measure might be, it was inapplicable to the present state of society in this country-that it could not standthat it would not be submitted to by the people of England. He confessed that The House divided:-Ayes 17; Noes there was some difficulty in the question 184: Majority 167. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, that it had not been thought necessary to have the approval of corporations to the Bill, because it had been advocated on public grounds, and it had been shown that the lands in the hands of corporations were mismanaged. They might as well expect an intimidating landlord to ask for the Ballot on behalf of the people, as to expect corporations to ask for a Bill like this. He should certainly go to a division, believing that the principle would come up for discussion again before long. Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Words added. from that point of view; but it could all be easily overcome, if they would only trust Main Question, as amended, put, and to the good sense and judgment of the agreed to. Second Reading put off for three of the Bills now before the House for months. people themselves. Had he not reliance on that, he would not be a party to any interfering with the sale of intoxicating liquors. It must be on the fair expresSALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. sion of the feeling of the people, and on (Mr. Birley, Mr. Candlish, Mr. Robert Fowler, that only, that any restriction like this Mr. Osborne Morgan.) ought to be imposed upon them. He was willing to admit that the very rigid[BILL 78.] SECOND READING. ness of the rule of universal closing, Order for Second Reading read. which he advocated, in itself constituted MR. BIRLEY, in moving "That the a difficulty, as rules which might not be Bill be now read a second time," said, suitable to one place would not be suithe was not very sanguine of success; able to another. It might be that some but still he felt convinced that the move- places were ripe for legislation of this ment in favour of the closing of public-kind, while others were not. He often houses on Sundays had made great progress out-of-doors, and that there was a strong impression in favour of it among many Members of that House. In former debates reference had been made to the Report of the Select Committee appointed in 1868, on the Motion of the late Mr. John Abel Smith, to inquire into this subject. That Committee did no doubt report that, considering the present system had worked satisfactorily, they were of opinion that further legislation of a restrictive character was not required; but it was his (Mr. Birley's) opinion that if the same hon. Gentlemen wished they could go back to the old Court Leets, and that they might be permitted, in their different manors, to enact by-laws for the good conduct of all residing on the manor. It seemed to him that there was, in the jurisdiction of those Courts, an admirable combination of authority and of local self-government, and that drunkenness was kept down by the free voice of the people, which was much better than the hard iron rule of the police. From the old records it was quite clear that the management and control of public-houses and inns frequently engaged the atten tion of those tribunals, and it seemed | closing was in force, and worked well. to him there was greater temperance in He should have thought that Melbourne those days than was the case now. He might not have been beforehand with did not attribute that to greater purity this country in the course it had taken or virtue, for there were other causes at in this matter. There was another Bill work. In the first place, there was a with the same object now before the greater supervision with respect not only House-for the prevention of the sale to the sale, but to the quality of the of intoxicating liquors in Ireland on beer. In the next place, there was very Sunday. That Bill had not hitherto little spirits consumed; and lastly, the met with any direct opposition. One of people had not much money to spend. the greatest objections that had been He found that in one case, where a man raised against the passing of the Bill was fined 6d. for an assault, on it being was, that it was of that class of legislapresented that he was intoxicated at the tion which indicated that "there is one time he committed the assault, he was fur- law for the rich and another for the ther fined 58., so that his drunkenness was poor; " and it was argued that while considered a ten-fold aggravation of the the rich man had his "club" to go to offence. He did not, however, wish it on the Sunday, the poor man had not. to be supposed that that was the pro- He ventured to say that very few of portion which it was intended to estab- that class who had clubs went to and lish between the one offence and the used them on Sundays; while, on the other; but, at all events, it showed that other hand, the public-houses were frethey were then prepared to inflict heavy quented by large numbers of the labourpenalties for the offence of drunkenness. ing classes on that day, many of whom He would now direct attention to the habitually indulged to excess in them. state of the law in the colonies on this He was not one of those who advocated subject. In Melbourne the closing of the abridgement of the rational enjoypublic-houses on Sunday had led to the ments of the working classes; on the most beneficial, moral, and social results. contrary, he would extend them. The As a confirmation of that fact, he would public-houses, appropriated to their read the following letter from a gen- proper uses, were intended for the supply tleman who had filled a responsible of necessary refreshment for the working position in that colony:classes; but he did not think it desirable that they should be open on the Sunday. If English working men had their clubs not for indulgence to excess, but as places for resort for necessary refreshment and comfort, there would be no opposition to them. He felt that the objects of the measure which he was now advocating were well worthy the consideration of this House. Let the House consider what was the effect of keeping public-houses open on Sunday. It was a day which, instead of being regarded as a blessing, was by many devoted to excess in drink "I know well what scenes disgraced our streets in Melbourne before the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, and I know well also the order and prosperity now observed therein. I have travelled through most parts of Europe, have traversed the United States, and have a fair knowledge of Great Britain; but in no place have I seen so great an amount of sobriety, cheerfulness, and rational enjoyment on the Sunday, without the opening of hotels, as in Melbourne. In spite of the assertion that drink is sold within closed doors, and that no pressure is particularly exerted to enforce the law, there is public spirit enough in that enlightened community to recognize the value of the Act, and sufficient firmness to maintain it. Apart from the mere religious question, it is believed quite possible to enjoy life on Suning, and was thus rendered productive day without the sale of alcoholic drinks. Men take their wives and children with them for re creation on part of that day, instead of selfish in dulgence, as in other places, at the public-house." In Canada, too, the law worked well, and there the public-houses were closed all through Sunday. It was the same in Newfoundland. In Bermuda, the tavern-keepers could supply intoxicating liquors on Sundays to travellers and guests, and that not separately, but in conjunction with other refreshments. In New Zealand, too, the law of Sunday Mr. Birley of evil; it was a day on which the hard earnings of the week before were sadly wasted; it was a day on which the excessive indulgence in intoxicating liquors left the labouring man less able to do his work on Monday than he found himself when leaving work on the Saturday evening; and it was a day on which, more than any other day of the week, he should abstain from such excess. He (Mr. Birley) had not thought it necessary to trouble the House either with details of the Bill, or with statistics that had been before it such legislation as that now proposed on former occasions, when the subject came to and meant this-that the labourwas debated; but he felt that in sub-ing classes of this country were so admitting the Bill to the consideration of the House he had done his duty to his constituents and to the country; and he did so, not that he was very sanguine of immediate results, but in the great hope that in the future they should find a united people of all classes willing to apply a remedy to the great evil which the Bill was intended to deal with. He would conclude by moving the second reading of the Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Birley.) dicted to drunkenness that they could MR. FIELDEN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, he wished to give every credit to the hon. Member who had moved that it be read a second time. With all respect for the hon. Gentleman, however, he looked upon the Bill as a "libel" on the great mass of the labouring people of this country. What the hon. Member was bound to do he had failed to do. When trying to impose restrictions upon the people, what he was bound to do was to prove that a large majority of the people of the country were addicted to drunkenness and indulgence in intoxicating liquors on Sunday. Now, he had not done that. When the hon. Member tried to find facts to fortify his position he failed in his effort. Let the hon. Member say what he liked, anyone who looked at the measure must come to the conclusion that it was an attempt at class legislation, and that it was a Bill that would affect the labouring class alone, and not the upper and middle classes. Why should the labouring man, who was living from hand to mouth, and who had no means of procuring refreshment, be precluded from obtaining what was necessary for him at the publichouse? The upper and middle classes throughout the country could have everything they required at home, or at their clubs. But the labouring man had no club, and if that Bill was permitted to pass, the door of the public-house would be shut against him, whilst the rich man who were often most would have what he desired at his man- valuable workmen. He asked the sion or his club. He asked the House, House what those men were to do if was that the way to encourage loyalty this Bill became law. Where were in the labouring classes? He main- they to get their dinner and the pint of tained that the arguments in support of beer, which, whether that Bill passed |