Resolution was affirmed last year, there | ministration to take up this question and will be, in some degree, another step in deal with it immediately. If that be the advance. What it may lead to at pre- case, and if that be the conclusion to sent will be mainly this-that we shall which we come, my hon. Friend has no gradually come to something more like reason to regret or despair. The hon. unanimity in considering this question, Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) and possibly approach a state of feeling told us what a great diminution there which, at some not distant time, may had been in the number of licences, alfacilitate legislation upon it. But there though there had been an increase in are several great questions which are population, and he argued from that blocking the way. Hon. Members have that the magistrates had fairly and heard that illustration which has been honestly done their duty. I do not in sometimes attributed to me, but which I the least dispute that; but I say that borrowed from my old friend Colonel the reason that there has been that Perronet Thomson, that you cannot get change within the last few years had six or 12 omnibuses abreast through been mainly in consequence of the great Temple Bar. We are just in that posi- agitation throughout the country, which tion now. What are the great ques- has been promoted and led, to a great tions which the Government will have degree, by the hon. Baronet the Member before long to turn its attention to ? for Carlisle. He may take comfort in There is that introduced by the hon. this-that, although the House is not Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), prepared, and the Government is not the great question of the Land Laws. prepared, now to introduce or promote There is besides that another question on any Bill upon this question, that the which, I believe, the Liberal Party, movement amongst the people, the diswith scarcely any exception, is united, cussion of this question going on year and I suppose there are a great many after year will create an amount of opiMembers opposite who will not differ- nion which will not only compel some the question of the extension of the Government to deal with this question, county franchise. There is probably but which is necessary to enable any also the question of the re-distribution of Government to deal with it in a manner Parliamentary seats, which may, I hope, that can be effectual and satisfactory. lead to general support. Then there is, The policy which was pursued on this besides that, another question which Bench last year is the policy of to-night. presses very much the municipal This is in no degree either a Government government of this great City of Resolution, nor is the policy of the Reso4,000,000 people. Ireland contains lution a Government policy. This is a 5,000,000, but the Metropolis in which matter on which every Member of the we are now contains 4,000,000, and a House has a right to form his own opigreater confusion of government pro- nion, and act freely upon it. I hope, bably never existed in a time of peace whatever the division may be, it may be in any great city in the world. These a division not influenced by Party, but are great and pressing questions. I by a consideration of the circumstances think some of them, at least, are ripe of the time in which we are debating, for the consideration of the House, and and of the vast and paramount importfor being dealt with by Parliament. If ance of the great question which my the Government is to make a choice, if hon. Friend has submitted to us. I were to put it to the House what choice it shall make, it may be that the question of the drink traffic is one of so great difficulty, and for which the public is so little ripe, that it would be injudicious in the last degree to take that before the other questions I have mentioned. I am not arguing against legislation on behalf of the general objects of my hon. Friend. I am arguing so that the passing of the Resolution last year and the re-affirming of it this year must not be understood to be a compelling of the Ad Mr. John Bright COLONEL MAKINS said, that there was one advantage which the House had derived from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that was it had got a rough draft of the Queen's Speech, not only for next Session, but for many Sessions to come. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not derive much consolation from the right hon. Gentlemau, for what he said came to this-that the Government could not Bill help him at all, and that he ought to go on agitating and agitating so as to exercise pressure on some future Administration. For his own part, he (Colonel Makins) felt as much the necessity of doing something to put an end to the evils of intemperance as even the eloquent apostle of local option himself. But what he quarrelled with was the hon. Baronet's method of dealing with the evil. He was aware that it took some courage on the part of an hon. Member to say a word against the Motion, because he did so at the risk of being held up in the journal of the United Kingdom Alliance as the advocate of drunkenness and drunkards. Nevertheless, he would express his opinion that the natural result of the division of last year was that the hon. Baronet should have brought in a embodying his views, and then the Government could have said at once whether they approved it or not. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. H. B. Samuelson) candidly admitted that he supported the Resolution because it was vague. For 12 years the hon. Member had listened to the hon. Baronet, and had not been able to support him; but now the Resolution was so vague he could do so. Hon. Members might, therefore, go back to their constituents and say that they had voted in favour of temperance; but they must see the Bill on the subject before they could say whether they should support it or not. The hon. Baronet had not exaggerated the evils of drunkenness; but he (Colonel Makins) might be allowed to remind him that public-houses were for the use of the public, and not of drunkards, and that for one drunken man who went to a public-house there were 50 sober ones who made a proper use of it. His Motion, therefore, should be directed rather against the drunkards who made a bad use of those places than against the sober ones who did not. should be used against those who were guilty of intemperance, and not against those who only used their natural right to go to the public-house for their ac commodation. The hon. Baronet said that all the crime, lunacy, and poverty of this country arose from drink. Well, the statistics of intemperance in France compared favourably with those of this country; but he did not know that the statistics of crime in France compared It so favourably. [Cries of "Divide!"] As the House appeared to be impatient for a division, he would only add that, feeling as strongly as the hon. Baronet the evils of which he complained, he did not think the remedy he proposed was likely to be effective, while it would undoubtedly seriously interfere with the liberty of the subject. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 196; Noes 154: Majority 42. AYES. Agar-Robartes,hn.T.C. Archdale, W. H. Ashley, hon. E. M. Barran, J. Borlase, W. C. Davies, W. Dodson, rt. hn J. G. Egerton, Adm. hon. F. Farquharson, Dr. R. Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B. Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Foljambe, C. G. S. Brand, H. R. Bruce, hon. R. P. Bryce, J. Buxton, F. W. H. Campbell, Lord C. Clarke, J. C. Cohen, A. Collings, J. Cowper, hon. H. F. Currie, D. Gladstone, H. J. Gordon, Sir A. Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Gourley, E. T. Grey, A. H. G. Hamilton, J. G. C. Illingworth, A. James, C. James, W. H. Jenkins, D. J. Kinnear, J. Labouchere, H. Laing, S. which he submitted to the House was a very moderate one, and it would only apply to those who paid up six months' rent within 14 days of the passing of the Act. He did not intend to make a speech. He only wanted to state what the Bill was, and he would merely say that a very extraordinary thing had been done in blocking this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by asking leave to introduce the Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Suspend Evictions in Ireland for a limited period, on payment of six months' rent." (Major Nolan.) MR. T. COLLINS trusted his hon. Friend would not persist, and mentioned that the Rule of the House used to be that unless a Bill had been thrown out in a previous Session, its introduction was allowed in order that the country might be informed of the nature of the proposals submitted. If a Bill had been before the House Session after Session, and the House had refused, by large majorities, to pass it, then the House exercised a wise discretion in not allowing it to be brought in; but when a Bill was introduced for the first time it was unfair not to allow it to be printed. In " another place," he believed that would be done as a matter of course. When the Bill had been printed the SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF said, he did not intend to oppose the hon. and gallant Member; but it appeared to think the House would be generally of MR. GLADSTONE said, he did not him extraordinary that a Bill of this kind think the House would be generally of should be brought in while the Land Bill opinion that it was the duty of the Gowas going through, without the Govern-vernment to charge themselves with the ment taking any part in the discussion. The proposed Bill affected the whole of the interests of landlords in Ireland; and yet the Government were allowing it to pass sub silentio. In order that the Government might express some opinion upon the Bill satisfactorily, he would move the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Debate be now adjourned.". (Sir H. Drummond Wolff.) MR. HEALY thought the course taken by the hon. Gentleman an extraordinary one, for he asked the Government to express an opinion upon a Bill which had not been printed. He was glad, however, that the hon. Gentleman had taken that course, for it showed that the Tory Party wanted to see the present state of things carried to a pass which it was likely to arrive at. The Bill was a very moderate one; but the Tory Party, who expressed great interest in the welfare of Ireland, now proposed to adjourn the debate. If they were anxious to improve the state of affairs in Ireland they should allow the Bill to be introduced. MR. LITTON hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, observing that it was because there was a Land Bill before the House that this Bill was necessary. It was merely a measure for tiding over a short period, and he hoped it would be brought in. conduct of this matter in such a sense He to provoke unnecessary opposition. That | to the Irish tenants, he would urge his being the case, he hoped the House countrymen to reach out their hands to would concur in the view that the hon. meet any compromise of an equitable and gallant Member ought to be allowed character from the landlords. to introduce the Bill. MR. W. H. SMITH said, he thought that after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would do well to withdraw his Motion. It was desirable that the House should see what the hon. and gallant Member proposed on this subject. LORD ELCHO observed, that Bills were not always allowed to be brought in and printed; on the contrary, he had known many divisions to be taken on the proposal to introduce a Bill, and so to economize the time of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) appeared to have no idea what the Bill proposed; but he should have thought, from what took place last year and from what was on the Notice Paper, there could be no doubt as to the character of the Bill. It was a Bill to suspend evictions. The Bill of last year was brought in to meet cases of real distress, and after the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) proposed a clause in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill to suspend evictions, the Government themselves brought in a Bill with that object, and all the row that occurred last year about disturbance and evictions resulted from that. The same game was being played now. The Prime Minister had not said one word against the Bill; on the contrary, arguing from what he had said, he would rather favour it. Therefore, nothing would surprise him (Lord Elcho) less than that the Government should find it right to take up the Bill themselves. MR. A. M. SULLIVAN regarded it as a happy omen that no Irish Members, although there were some of strong Conservative opinions, and some landlords, had opposed the introduction of the Bill; and he did not despair of seeing the war between the landlords and the tenants of Ireland ended. If this Bill did not pass he should like to see the Irish landed gentry agreeing to some similar measure by which, while the Government Bill was passing, tenants should be secure, so that the discussion of the Bill might not be accompanied by harrowing scenes in Ireland. Fighting to the last moment for justice Mr. Gladstone CAPTAIN AYLMER agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kuaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) as to the old custom; but he thought the hon. Gentle man the Member for Portsmouth (Sir II. Drummond Wolff) had done good service in moving the adjournment of the debate, because the title of the Bill was of an exceptional character and conveyed imputations of such a nature that the Government ought to refuse the Bill. It implied that evictions were on the increase, by the injustice of the landlords. He believed that they were not increasing, and the imputation was a gross calumny on the landlords. The hon. Gentleman was therefore quite justified in his Motion. MR. R. N. FOWLER reminded the Prime Minister of the doctrine laid down by himself at the beginning of the Session of 1869. A Bill was introduced by Lord Bury to relieve Members who accepted Office under the Crown from having to seek re-election, and the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle that when there was any doubt about a Bill, when it involved any details, it was proper to permit its introduction; but that when there was no question of details, when the object of the Bill was perfectly obvious, then it was Constitutional to oppose its introduction. [Mr. GLADSTONE assented.] He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman assented to the accuracy of his recollection of the doctrine he then laid down. COLONEL MAKINS also agreed that a first reading was in ordinary cases given to a Bill as a matter of courtesy ; but there were exceptions to that rule, and this he took to be one of the exceptions which clearly came within the definition laid down by the Prime Minister. When it was clear from the title that the object of a Bili was to overturn the rights of certain members of the community, then it was quite open to the House to oppose its introduction. That was the case with this Bill, which assumed that evictions were being carried on in Ireland unfairly. Either the landlords were evicting according to the law, or they were not; but this Bill proposed to alter the law in favour of the tenants at a time when |