Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

He

MR. RYLANDS hoped that the right | be that sort of opposition, which he did hon. Gentleman would accept the Motion not wish in any way to oppose. for adjournment. In addition to the would therefore consent to the adjournAmendment proposed, he did know that ment of the debate. other hon. Members had intended to propose certain Amendments upon this Resolution, and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was utterly impossible to go on advancing that question at that time of night. He must say that if they were asked to change the procedure of the House, it

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.

was at least reasonable that the House (Dr. Cameron, Mr. Clare Read, Mr. Ashley, Sir

should proceed with very great deliberation, and that it should not be considered unreasonable that they should ask for more than one night for the consideration of the question.

Henry Jackson, Mr. Edward Jenkins, Mr.
William Holms, Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)

[BILL 47.] SECOND READING. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second

MR. NEWDEGATE hoped the House would go on with the discussion. MR. BIGGAR said, he was not gene-time"-(Dr. Cameron.) rally in favour of adjournments; but on this particular occasion, as regarded the Amendment then before the House, he could candidly say that he had no idea of what the Resolution was to be. If the hon. Member who proposed it had the opportunity to put it upon the Paper, they would know what it referred to; but really, as it then stood, the whole House was in the dark as to what its purport was. The Government were not acting as business men in asking them to sit there longer on that occasion, and he might say that he had had considerable experience of the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours to save time, the result being that he generally spent it. He did not believe that hon. Gentlemen would allow themselves to be forced into accepting the Resolution.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON said, he was inclined to agree with the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. He thought it would not be impossible to agree to the Resolution that night; but he could not help recognizing that there were a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who would not, at that time of the night, apply themselves to the task; and he was therefore afraid it would be quite hopeless for them to expect to get through the Resolution that night. He therefore put it to his right hon. Friend whether the further discussion of the Resolution had not better be adjourned?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he agreed with the sugges

MR. DILLWYN moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He thought that where persons were deprived of their liberty they should be in the custody of State officials. In this case his hon. Friend had said there was no analogy between the institutions suggested by the Bill and lunatic asylums, and that in the one case it was a compulsory act, and in the other a voluntary one. But they all knew that the habitual drunkard got into a decrepid state of mind and body, and that while he might go into such an institution readily enough he was practically very glad to get out again. In both cases the persons having custody of them had a direct pecuniary interest in retaining them in those places during the whole of the time specified. The object of such people only ought to be to discharge their patients as soon as possible; whereas in this case it would be exactly the opposite. He would not trespass on the House further, but would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR, in seconding the Motion, said, he did not for one moment wish by so doing to suggest that the intention of the promoters was not of the most charitable design. Though the persons intended to be benefited formed a very sad spectacle, it was at the same time quite impossible for him to give his support to the Bill, as he looked upon it as one of the waves of

cates.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this Question proposed, "That the word. 'now' stand part of the Question."

ment, or rather grand-maternal govern- | away for 12 months would succeed in ment. He was of opinion that they doing so. Even more, the state of the could not enforce morality upon any law might tempt people to give way to class of the community, nor could they drink; and as they were aware there interfere with what they eat or what were unprincipled men in every profesthey drink, or wherewithal they should sion, there would not be much difficulty be clothed. The habit of gambling was in surmounting the medical certifione which frequently led to ruinous results, and it was impossible, perhaps, to break a person of it. He was sorry to say that the habit had been increasing of late of endeavouring to get the State to interfere with the liberty of the sub-day six months."-(Mr. Dillwyn.) ject. His hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was strongly endeavouring, amongst others, to make the people sober by shutting up DR. CAMERON said, he was glad the public-houses. He thought that now to learn the exact grounds upon was an impossibility, and that the which this Bill was opposed. As to the people ought to be dealt with by more objection that there existed an analogy philosophical means, by the spread of between the institutions suggested by education, the influence of friends, and the Bill and private lunatic asylums, such genuine influences. A right rev. there was not the remotest resemblance. Bishop had said that he would rather A private lunatic asylum was a place see a people free than sober. That where a person was committed for an might be rather extreme; but, at any indefinite period against his own will— rate, with regard to such legislation as perhaps by some unprincipled member was now proposed there was an element of the Medical Profession. If he were of truth; with freedom there was every- ill-treated, his complaint was treated thing to be hoped for; but when they as that of a lunatic the only witstopped an individual from some disas- nesses he could bring forward would trous vice by shutting him up, they did be lunatics. Therefore, to compare such not cure him; they left him to exer- a man with an habitual drunkard under cise his brutal tastes in some other this Bill was unfair. The hon. Gentledirection-perhaps in a more evil way. man characterised this Bill as "grandBeyond this, there was the much greater motherly legislation;" but, he asked, evil that they were dealing with the would they allow a man to permit himliberty of the subject; they were taking self to be held down and mutilated by away the freedom of which every man a surgical operation in order to obtain was possessed. He believed that it a cure, and yet refuse to allow another was not a principle of law for a man man the permission to get cured, by a to sell his freedom. A man had no brief surrender of his liberty, which the right to sell his freedom, even for 12 Bill would give him? When he intromonths. There was no doubt at this duced the Bill last year, he adduced time the Lunacy Laws had immensely evidence to show that there were improved; yet, nevertheless, at this number of habitual drunkards incartime he believed that there were grave cerated in lunatic asylums, and that abuses of it, and that there were at that there were a number of lunatics incarmoment people confined in lunatic asy-cerated in private institutions, called lums who ought not to be there. The present proposition was a very serious one, and one could imagine many instances where a Justice of the Peace would sign a certificate to the best of his belief when a maudlin drunkard was signing his liberty away for 12 months. He did not believe that this was a safe condition of things, and he believed that there would be cases in which persons having an interest in putting people

a

"Inebriates' Homes." As to the practical support he had received, it came from men who had no interest in the matter. He had a Petition in favour of the Bill from 80 medical superintendents of as many public asylums for the insane in all parts of the United Kingdom-men who thoroughly understood the whole subject, and who were fully alive to the evils complained of, in the case of private lunatic asylums.

Member for Glasgow carried this Bill certain facts had come out which his hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir Charles Legard) would tell the House; but to be asked to pass a Bill through Committee at that hour, it could hardly be expected that many Members would not oppose it in every

and was instrumental in stopping it. It was somewhat a long Bill, and at the present time he did not think they had had time to consider it properly, even though it was said to be the same Bill that did not pass last Session. He begged to move that the consideration of the Bill be taken that day six months. MR. STACPOOLE seconded the Motion.

EARL PERCY said, that the principal | should not go into Committee at this objection to the Bill appeared to be on hour. He believed that since the hon. the ground that it was proposed to punish vice by legislation. That was entirely a misapprehension of the intention of the Bill. It was not a Bill to prevent drunkenness, but to provide a means for those who wished to do so to reform. Those who supported the Bill believed that drunkenness after a time had such an influence-for practical pur-way. He opposed the Bill last time, poses as to cause the loss of that healthy control which sane people were supposed to possess. It was supposed that at the time of his signing away his liberty for 12 months, the habitual drunkard was in sufficient possession of his faculties to know what he was doing. The question was, which was the greater of the two evils-that he should perhaps be incarcerated in one of those houses for a limited space of time, or that he should be reduced to the state in which he was now?-and those who had studied the question knew which was the greater evil very well. There were hundreds in this country who would be glad to reform if they had the opportunity to do so. He had some experience on this subject, and the great difficulty met with was the absence of any power of restraint over those who were willing in the first instance to enter these retreats.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."-(Mr. Anderson.)

Mr. ONSLOW said, this was a very important Bill, and it affected most materially the liberties of the subject. He should oppose this Bill, and all such others, which had for their object putting a stop to the legitimate amusements of the people on the plea that they could by legislation improve the morals of the public. He hoped the

Amendment proposed,

end of the Question, in order to add the words,
"this House will, upon this day six months,
resolve itself into the said Committee,”-
(Mr. Onslow,)

To leave out from the word "That" to the

instead thereof.

proposed to be left out stand part of the Question proposed, "That the words Question."

SIR CHARLES LEGARD said, notwithstanding the decision which the House arrived at on Saturday morning, he should again oppose the Bill. He stated, on the last occasion, that he had been present at the meetings to which the Bill was to be applied; and he had not seen anything which ought to cause the measure to become law. He had taken some little trouble to ascertain whether those few meetings were really of the description that it was necessary for the House of Commons to legislate for. He believed the House ought not to indulge in any mere sentimental legislation. He thought there never was a case in which there was greater reason to pause than there was now, before they legislated to do away with two small suburban meetings. He need not say he was not personally interested, directly or indirectly; but, as far as he understood it, the House was asked to legislate expressly to do away with the race-meetings at Kingsbury and Streatham, because he understood the Bill would not apply to the

MR. ERRINGTON thought hon. Gentlemen ought to have further opportunity for discussing the Bill.

MR. ANDERSON said, all the Amendments on the Bill were debated last year; and therefore, as there was no time later on in the Session, and the MR. STACPOOLE moved the adjourn-pronounced on the matter, he hoped he sense of the House had been so decidedly MR. ERRINGTON seconded the Mo- might be allowed to go on.

reporting Progress. There was a very strong feeling against this Bill; and he felt that, considering all that had happened that many Bills had been stopped on account of the lateness of the hour-it was not inconsistent to ask that further consideration of the Bill should be postponed till a more suitable opportunity.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA agreed with the hon. Member that it was absurd to think of the House being asked to go into Committee on a Bill at 2 o'clock in the morning. There was something preposterous in the Motion. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had, no doubt, a high moral standing on this question; but he did join with hon. Gentlemen on the other side in asking the hon. Member to allow the Bill to be put down for another day.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, the hon. Member would not expect him to agree that they had not made substantial Progress that night; and having regard to the progress of the Bill last Session, he thought they might now report Progress.

MR. ANDERSON consented. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.

LEAVE. FIRST READING.

DISTRICT AUDITORS BILL.

On Motion of Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Bill to

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and continue the amend the Law with respect to District Auditors, Acts relating to the prevention of Cor-ordered to be brought in by Mr. SCLater-Booth, rupt Practices at Parliamentary Elec- Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. SALT.

tions.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE asked whether it was the intention to change

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 79.]

the law with regard to the employment EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO of vehicles at elections?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) said, it was not proposed to alter the law in that respect in Parliamentary boroughs. He might anticipate, however, that when the Bill was brought into Committee some alterations might be made, and he should wish that the question might be thoroughly discussed; but, at present, it

SERVANTS BILL.

On Motion of Mr. MACDONALD, Bill to amend the Law as to Employers' Liability for Injuries to their Servants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACDONALD, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. MELDON, Mr. EARP, and Mr. BURT.

Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.]

House adjourned at a quarter after