HC Deb 10 June 1840 vol 54 cc974-88

House in committee for the re-consideration of the report on the Sale of Beer Bill.

On the first clause being put, which provides that— Licences to retail beer shall not be granted to any but the real resident occupier, nor in respect of any house rated at less than 15l. per annum within the bills of mortality, cities, towns and boroughs containing 10,000 inhabitants; nor less than 11l. per annum in cities parishes, or places exceeding2,500 inhabitants; nor less than 8l. per annum in parishes or places situated elsewhere; nor unless poor rates and assessed taxes be previously paid,

Lord G. Somerset

said, it was with great regret that he found himself called upon to throw any impediment in the way of the progress of the bill of his hon. Friend; more particularly, as no man was more anxious than himself to put an end to the evils of beer-houses. The proposition of his hon. Friend was, that parties before they should be allowed to open beer-houses, should be in the occupation of houses worth a rental of 15l. at least, if situated in London and Westminster, or in cities, towns, or boroughs containing 10,000 inhabitants, whilst in other cases the rental must be 11l. in cities, parishes, or places exceeding 2,500 inhabitants, or 8l. elsewhere. He (Lord G, Somerset) was opposed to this graduated scale. He apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend was to ensure a certain degree of respectability in these beer-shop keepers in the different districts. Now, he did not see by what criterion the proposition of his hon. Friend could be carried into effect. The proposal was, that in towns having a population of, or exceeding, 10,000 souls, or being within one mile of a polling-place, of a place returning Members to Pailiament—that in all these cases persons occupying houses, paying or worth 15l. a year, should alone be entitled to be licensed. Now, in the county which he (Lord G. Somerset) represented, there were two parishes only where the population exceeded 10,000. He thought the rental in both these places would be so great as almost entirely to exclude from the operation of the Beer Act any persons who might take out licences. This regulation would include Pontypool, where, perhaps, the 15l. would not be too high; but yet he found in the same district a widely-spread population, engaged in the coal and iron trade, where 8l. ought to apply; whilst, in Newport, 11l. would be the medium. By a return which had been laid before the House, he found that, in the Hereford collection, there were 298 beer-houses under the value of 10l. The greatest part of the beer-houses were under the lowest class. In fact, his hon. Friend would not effect the object which he had in view, namely, that of keeping beer-houses out of country districts, by the graduated scale which he proposed to adopt. If he looked to the case of the town of Usk, the principle would not apply. He certainly did not see his way through this matter, because if he were to propose any standard for his own county, other Gentlemen would quickly find that it would not apply to theirs.

Mr. Hamilton

thought that unless the noble Lord intended to oppose the bill altogether, it would be better to leave the first clause as it stood.

Mr. Pakington

was extremely sorry to find that the graduated scale did not meet with the approbation of his noble Friend. It appeared to him that the point to be considered was this, whether the House in dealing with the evils of the Beer Act could adopt a property qualification as a remedy or not. Seeing that the principle of a property qualification was distinctly laid down by the Chandas committee in 1834, and had since been recognized by the House both in the last and the present Session of Parliament, he thought he had a right to assume that the imposition of a qualification of that kind afforded the best means of dealing with the evil. Then the question arose as to whether he had adopted a fair graduated scale. He fully admitted the difficulty which arose upon that point, as regarded the value of property; he knew that what applied to one part of the kingdom would not apply to another part; but this was a difficulty inseparable from a property qualification, and applied with equal force to the qualification for the elective franchise as to the qualification for keeping a beer-house. All, therefore, that he could do was to endeavour to form such a scale as would apply with the greatest attainable fairness to all parts of the kingdom. From the information he had been enabled to obtain upon the subject, he believed that the scale he proposed would have that effect; and for that reason he could not consent to any alteration of it. To meet the objection that it would not be fair to deal with vested interests, he had introduced a clause to provide that the bill should not apply to existing beer-houses, and to render its operation entirely prospective.

Mr. Warburton

suggested that the bill should be allowed to go through committee pro formâ in order to afford the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Pakington) time to prepare the clauses he proposed to introduce. The House would then have the advantage of knowing what the provisions of the bill really were, and the opportunity of discussing it in a distinct and tangible form.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

reminded the hon. Member for Bridport, that the course he recommended had already been acted upon; and that the bill now stood before the House in its amended shape. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to make some remarks upon the measure, but in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely audible. We understood him to state that, in his own opinion, he thought the best way of dealing with the subject would be to render the trade in beer as free as possible, and to place the beer-houses under the control of a strict police; but since it was proposed to deal with it by adopting a property qualification, he thought that the provisions of the bill now proposed were, perhaps, as just and fair, and as generally applicable to all parts of the country, as any that could be adopted.

Mr. Alston

agreed with the general principle of the bill, but he thought the qualification clause, as at present constituted, in particular with reference to the county of Hertford, would have an injurious effect on the beer interest. In justice to his constituents he would not attempt any compromise, and as he doubted whether the originator of the bill would be willing to satisfy him as far as regarded the qualification, he should at once move that the words be expunged.

Mr. Slaney

said, the alteration in the beer-trade had produced anything rather than a beneficial result. He was, however, most anxious to have a fair qualification, because it would induce small and respectable shopkeepers to enter into the beer-trade. The remedy was not a perfect remedy, but as far as it went he considered it was a good one.

Mr. Wakley

wanted to know why the bill was to be allowed to pass, if the affair required, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an augmented police. The law as it at present stood was as bad as it could be. The labourers were demoralized, and their wives and children were exposed to augmented destitution. The present remedy, though well meant, would not be effectual; and, as the evil was so very great, would it not be better to wait for another year, until such a measure was framed as would meet the evil effectually? What was wanted was a system of police. So said the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but what was wanted most was general education. Seeing, therefore, that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted the efficiency of the present measure, he should, for the reasons he had alleged, support the amendment.

Captain Pechell

had one objection to the measure, and that was, because the last census was to be the basis of the bill; but as another census was in contemplation, he hoped the hon. Member would pause until the bill for the new census was passed into law.

Mr. Aglionby

thought a 10l. qualification was too high, he should therefore propose to substitute the words "ten pounds" for "eleven pounds."

Mr. Alston

withdrew his amendment.

On the question that "eleven pounds" stand part of the clause, the Cmmittee divided: Ayes 37; Noes 20: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.
Acland,T. D. Hughes, W.B.
Adare, Viscount Ingestre, Viscount
Baring, rt. hon. F.T. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Barnard, E. G. Nicholl, J.
Benett, J. Palmer, R.
Blackburne, I. Palmer, G.
Bramston, T. W. Parker, R. T.
Busfield, W. Philips, M.
Cresswell, C. Plumtre, J. P.
Duncombe, hon. W. Pusey, P.
Eastnor, Viscount Richards, R.
Egerton, W. T. Somerset, Lord G
Evans, W. Sotheron, T. E.
Gladstone, W. E. Teignmouth, Lord
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Vere, Sir C. B.
Greg, R. H. Wood, Col. T.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Wood, B.
Harcourt, G. G. TELLERS.
Heathcote, Sir W, Pakington, J.S.
Hector, C. J. Slaney, R.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, Major Strickland, Sir G.
Bewes, T. Talfourd, Sergeant
Butler, hon. Col. Thornely, T.
Dundas, C. W. D. Vigors, N. A.
Greig, D. Wakley, T.
Hobhouse,T. B. Warburton, H.
Howard, P. H. Williams, W.
James, W. Worsley, Lord
Morris, D.
Pechell, Captain TELLERS.
Smith, B. Alston, R.
Stock, Dr. Aglionby, H. A.

Mr. Alston moved to substitute the word "five thousand" instead of "two thousand five hundred."

The Committee divided on the question that the words "two thousand five hundred" stand part of the clause: Ayes 40; Noes 22; Majority 18.

Mr. Alston

then moved the omission of the words "one rating" and proposed the substitution of the words "for any house, premises, or land."

Mr. Pakington

said he would not depart from the original clause, because the words "one rating" included land.

The committee divided on the question that the original words stand part of the clause—Ayes34; Noes22; Majority 12.

Mr. Alston

then moved to substitute the words "five pounds" instead of "eight pounds," for the rent and annual value of the premises to be rated.

Mr. Goring

opposed the amendment, and stated that the beer shops in the rural districts were places where many of the greatest crimes had been concocted, and that it was well know to every one that the House had been inundated with petitions, not only from the labourers, but also from their wives and families, praying that the beer-shops might be done away with.

Mr. Warburton

said that the bill would not put down the beer-shops. The only effect it would have would be that the brewers would advance money to persons wishing to establish beer-houses, and by this means raise the value of the property to 10l., an effect quite the reverse of that which the hon. Gentleman opposite anticipated from the measure.

Mr. Aglionby

supported the amendment, and considered that a well-regulated beer-shop, under a proper police, was a great blessing to its locality. As to beer-shops being the places where it was said so much crime was concocted, he for one did not think that the evidence taken before the committee established that assertion.

Lord Worsley

said he had voted for the lower rate in the towns, but could not do so for the rural districts, where the beer-shops were the resort of the worst description of characters, where the village constable had no control, and where outrages were concocted which even the new police, where they had been established, were not sufficient to check.

On the question that the original vote stand part of the clause, the committee divided—Ayes43; Noes22; Majority 21.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, W. Palmer, R.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T. Palmer, G.
Barnard, E. G. Parker, R. T.
Barrington, Viscount Philips, M.
Benett, J. Plumptre, J. P.
Bruges, W. H. Pusey, P.
Busfeild, W. Richards, R.
Cresswell, C. Rickford, W.
Duncombe, hn. W. Round, C. G.
Eastnor, Viscount Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Egerton, W. T. Slaney, R. A.
Evans, W. Somerset, Lord G.
Goulburn, rt. hn. H. Sotheron, T. E.
Greg, R. H. Stewart, J.
Grimsditch, T. Teignmouth, Lord
Harcourt, G. G. Vere, Sir C. B.
Heathcote, Sir W. White, A.
Hector, C. J. Wood, Col. T.
Houldsworth, T. Wood, B.
Hughes, W. B. Worsley, Lord
Irton, S. TELLERS.
Kelly, F. Pakington, J. S.
Lascelles, hon. W. Goring, H. D.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, Major Strickland, Sir G.
Bewes, T. Strutt, E.
Burroughes, H. Talfourd, Sergeant
Butler, hon. Col. Thornley, T.
Greig, D. Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B. Villiers, C. P.
Hobhouse, T. B, Wakley, T.
Howard, P. H. Warburton, H.
James, W. Williams, W.
Pechell, Captain
Salwey, Colonel TELLERS.
Smith, B. Alston, R.
Stock, Dr. Aglionby, H. A.

Clause agreed to.

On clause 4, providing that persons to retail beer and cider shall be obliged to produce a certificate from the overseer to the effect that they are the real residents, and stating the amount at which the houses are rated, and of the receipt for poor-rates and assessed taxes,

Mr. P. Howard

observed, that as this clause proposed an interference with domestic life which was not sanctioned in any part of Europe, he should divide the House against it. There was no man, he hoped, who had any generous feeling of regard for the poor who would not divide with him.

The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill— Ayes 41; Noes 24: Majority 17.

Clause agreed to.—[Names nearly the same as the foregoing.]

On clause 12, requiring the production of certificates of good character before license be granted,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that as he meant to divide on the principle of this clause, he thought it better to propose the omission of the few first words than to allow any discussion of the details. This appeared to him to be the most convenient course. He had strong objections to this clause, because he feared that there would be great difficulty in carrying it into operation in the country parishes. He thought it would be most unwise to place such a discretion, as being able to say no to an application for a licence to open a beer-house, in the hands of either landed proprietors, farmers, or owners of houses rated at 12l. a-year; and all he would say was, that if such a power were to be vested in any parties, the magistrates were the persons to whom it should be given. His opinion, however, was, that no good would be attained by the certificate system, and that it would only lead to petty grievances and oppressions, which it was desirable by every possible means to avoid.

Mr. Darley

thought that if rating at 10l. instead of 12l. were adopted, the objection to the clause would be diminished.

Mr. Pakington

did not think that any sufficient reason had been stated to justify him in abandoning the clause.

Mr. Hawes

said, that as they had a property qualification, he did not see what they wanted with a moral qualification of this kind.

Mr. Benett

was satisfied that without some means of testing character, such as this clause proposed, a property qualification would be valueless. He should vote for the clause.

Mr. Goulburn

said that, from experi- ence, he was inclined to attach no importance to certificates of this kind; and therefore, if the House divided, he must vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. R. Alston

knew of at least one parish in Cambridgeshire in which there was but one occupier and one rated inhabitant.

Lord Granville Somerset

considered the clause of no use whatever; and, as he had not the slightest dependence on the certificate, he would vote for the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Warburton

said, in the small parishes in which there was barely a sufficient number of rated inhabitants, the clause would erect a secret tribunal to judge of men's characters, whilst in largo parishes the clause would be quite inoperative.

Lord Worsley

could not agree to a certificate being entirely useless. He thought that it would prevent a matt of bad character from obtaining a licence, though he doubted whether 12l. was not too high an amount.

Mr. Slaney

would support the clause, because, though the bill had worked well in large places, yet there were many smaller places in which it was necessary to have some better check upon the keepers of those houses. But he thought it would be better to reduce the number of persons signing the certificate to four, and the rating to 10l.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause—Ayes 41; Noes 43; Majority 2.

List of the AYES.
Arbuthnott, H. Houston, G.
Attwood, M. Hughes, W. B.
Barrington, Lord Ingham, R.
Blackburne, I. Lowther, Colonel
Bramston, T. W. Marton, G.
Brughes, W. H. L. Miles, W.
Burr, H. Palmer, R.
Burroughes, H. Palmer, G.
Cresswell, C. Parker, R. T.
Darby, G. Pusey, P.
Duffield, T. Richards, R.
Duncombe, W. Rickford, W.
Eastnor, Lord Round, C. G.
Egerton, W. T. Rushbrooke, R.
Goring, H. D. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Grimsditch, T. Slaney, R. A.
Heathcote, Sir W. Teignmouth, Lord
Hector, C. J. Vere, Sir C. B,
Hope, hon. C. Winnington, H,
Wodehouse, E. TELLERS.
Wood, Colonel T. Benett, J.
Worsley, Lord Pakington, J.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. James, W.
Aglionby, Major Jervis, J.
Alston, R. Lascelles, W. S.
Baring, F. T. Marshall, W.
Barnard, E. G. Marsland, H.
Berkeley, hon. C. Morris, D.
Blake, W. J. Muskett, G. A.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Peel, Sir R.
Busfeild, W. Philips, M.
Dundas, C. W. D. Salwey, Colonel
Elliot, hon. J. E. Somerset, Lord
Evans, G. Stock, Dr.
Evans, W. Strickland, Sir G.
Gisborne, T. Strutt, E.
Goulburn, H. Talfourd, Sergeant
Greg, R. H. Thornely, T.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Villiers, hon. C.
Hawkins, J. H. Wakley, T.
Heathcoat, J. Williams, W.
Hobhouse, T. B. Wood, B.
Hodgson, R. TELLERS.
Howard, P. H. Warburton, H.
Hutchins, E. J. Hawes, B.

Words struck out and clause rejected.

On clause 15, which regulates the hours of opening and closing beer houses.

Mr. Pakington

said, that the main principle of the clause went to make the hours for opening and closing the same all over the kingdom, instead of leaving that matter, as formerly, to the discretion of the magistates. He thought the hour of four o'clock for opening the houses was an unnecessarily early hour, and could be of no convenience to the poorer classes. He would, therefore, suggest that the hour of five o'clock should be named instead. With respect to the regulation for opening on Sundays, it was proposed that no house should be opened on Sundays between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and one in the afternoon. By the existing law no house could be opened before one o'clock in the afternoon on Sundays, and he should therefore propose that the words ten o'clock should be omitted, and that the houses should not be permitted to open on Sundays before one o'clock, and that they should be closed between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the evening.

Lord G. Somerset

would rather reject the clause altogether, 'and leave the law just as it stood now. He objected especially to the time for shutting being dependent on the population in each parish, because adjoining parishes, situated under precisely similar circumstances, except as to population, might have very different hours fixed. He moved the omission of the first words of the clause.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed that the bill was founded on the recommendations of the committee of 1834, and when they adopted the restrictions recommended by that committee, they must recollect that the committee reported also in favour of equalising the hours for opening and shutting the beerhouses and public houses; if, therefore, they took one part of the recommendations of that committee, and placed restrictions on the sale of beer in beer-houses, they ought to take all parts of the report. There was, however, a difficulty in fixing hours for the closing of public houses against travellers, and the object of the bill was, without interfering with the licensed victuallers, to give as much benefit to the beer-houses as was intended by the committee, with the difference only that there was no necessity of providing for travellers. The House would act unfairly if they took only the restrictive parts of the report of the committee, and gave up the benefits proposed to be conferred on the beer-houses. With respect to the hour of opening, he did not object to five o'clock instead of four.

Mr. Cresswell

said, the House had not been informed of any mischiefs arising from the present method of leaving the hours to be fixed by the magistrates. And he could not help thinking that the attempt to fix an uniformity of hours for all places would be productive of mischief.

Mr. Hawes

said, that in Surrey the beer-houses were shut at ten o'clock, whilst just over the other side of the water in Middlesex, the hour was eleven o'clock and this discrepancy had created great dissatisfaction. A distinction between the licensed victuallers and the beer-sellers, arising from the necessity of the former having their houses open at all times to travellers, did exist, and could not be prevented, but the hours for all beer-houses ought to be alike. He would also propose to leave out the words which required the houses to be shut up from three to five on Sundays, during the supposed afternoon service, seeing that those hours varied in different parishes, and frequently in the same parish. His proposal would be to keep all the houses shut till one o'clock on Sundays, and not interfere afterwards.

Mr. Pakington

found that public-houses were placed under the restriction proposed by the clause, and he thought it best that the practice should be assimilated.

Sir R. Peel

thought the distinction of districts drawn by the clause was insufficient and defective. The distinction was attempted to be drawn by the number of inhabitants in the parish, but it very frequently happened that a parish containing 2,000 persons was precisely similar in position to one in which there were 10,000l.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

admitted that the provision was defective, but he thought that this was not the only point in which the bill was defective. There was only a choice of difficulties, of which the least appeared to him to have been selected.

Mr. J. Jervis

thought it better to define the hours of opening and closing; these houses by the precise terms of an Act of Parliament than to leave it open to magistrates of districts to fix different periods for that purpose.

The Committee divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill — Ayes 63; Noes 24: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby,hn.G. R. Jervis, J.
Aglionby, H. A. Lascelles, hon. W. S
Aglionby, Major Lowther, hn. Colonel
Alston, R. Marsland, H.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Maule, hon. F.
Barnard, E. G. Miles, W.
Barrington, Viscount Morris, D.
Benett, John Muskett, G. A.
Berkeley, hon. C. O'Ferrall, R. M.
Blackburne, I. Palmer, R.
Blake, W. J. Palmer, G.
Burr, H. Philips, M.
Busfeild, W. Plumptre, J. P.
Codrington, C. W. Pusey, P.
Currie, R. Rickford, W.
Duffield, T. Round, C. G.
Duncombe, hon. W. Rushbrooke, Colonel
Eastnor, Viscount Rutherfurd, rt hn. A.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Salwey, Colonel
Evans, W. Slaney, R. A.
Gisborne, T. Smith, B.
Greg, R. H. Strickland, Sir G.
Hamilton, C. J. B. Talfourd, Serjeant
Hawes, B. Teignmouth, Lord
Hector, C. J. Thornely, T.
Hobhouse, T. B. Vere, Sir C. B.
Howard, P. H. Wakley, T. H.
Hughes, W. B. Warburton,
Ingham, R, White, A.
James, W. Williams, W.
Winnington, H. J.
Wodehouse, E. TELLERS.
Wood, B Pakington, J. S.
Worsley, Lord Gordon, R.
List of the NOES.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Marshall, W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Marton, G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Milnes, R. M.
Darby, G Nicholl, J.
Dundas, C. W. D. Parker, R. T.
Egerton, W. T. Peel rt. hon. Sir R.
Goring, H. D. Scarlett, hon. J, Y.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Strutt, E.
Grimsditch, T. Thompson, Alderman
Hawkins, J. H. Wood, Colonel T.
Heathcoat, Sir W.
Hodgson, R. TELLERS.
Hope, hon. C. Somerset, Lord G.
Kelly, F. Cresswell, C.

On the clause being again put.

Mr. Miles

suggested that the magistrates at quarter sessions assembled should have the power confided to them of fixing the hour of closing beer-houses within the district over which they should preside.

Sir George Strickland

thought that if this suggestion were adopted, the plan would be open to all the objections which had been urged against the system before established, by which jurisdiction was given to magistrates at petty sessions. He saw no reason why eleven o'clock should not be adopted as the hour to be universally observed as that at which beer-houses should be closed.

Mr. J. Jervis

thought that in London and Westminster the hours might be taken at twelve, and that elsewhere eleven o'clock should be fixed.

Sir R. Peel

thought great practical inconvenience would arise if the population of parishes were made the criterion by which the hour of closing was decided upon. He thought that the distinction as regarded the hour of closing should be between the towns and the rural districts. The decision as to which should be considered a rural district, and which a town district, might safely be left to the magistrates, with a power to the Secretary of State to review their decision.

Mr. Elliot

thought one uniform hour of closing would be preferable to the plan of closing in the towns at one hour, and the rural districts at another.

Mr. Grimsditch

moved an amendment to leave out the words applying the clause to places of which the population exceeded ten thousand.

The committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.—Ayes 65; Noes 7: Majority58.

List of the NOES
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Kelly, F.
Bruges, W. H. L. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Buller, Sir J. Y. TELLERS.
Cresswell, C. Grimsditch, T.
Hodgson, R. Parker, R.

[We give only the Noes].

On clause 18,

Mr. Wakley moved an amendment to enable the widows of beer-house keepers to continue the business during widowhood.

The committee divided. Ayes 43; Noes 24: Majority19.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Kelly, F.
Aglionby, Major Marshall, W.
Alston, R. Marsland, H.
Blake, W. J. Miles, W.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Morris, D.
Busfeild, W. Muskett, G. A.
Campbell, Sir J. Nicholl, J.
Currie, R. Philips, M.
Dundas, C. W. D. Rice, E. R.
Evans, W. Rushout, G.
Gisborne, T. Salwey, Colonel
Gordon, R. Strickland, Sir G.
Greg, R. H. Strutt, E.
Grimsditch, T. Talfourd, Sergeant
Hamilton, C. J. P. Thornely, T.
Hawes, B. Warburton, H.
Hawkins, J. H. Williams, W.
Hobhouse, T. B. Winnington, Sir T, E.
Howard, P. H. Winnington, H. J.
Ingham, R. Wood, B.
James, W. TELLERS.
Jervis, J. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Jones, J. Wakley, T.
List of the NOES.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Hughes, W.
Barrington, Viscount Palmer, R.
Blackburne, I. Palmer, G.
Bruges, W. H. Parker, R. T.
Burr, H. Plumptre, J. P.
Cresswell, C. Pusey, P.
Darby, G. Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Eastnor, Viscount Sotheron, T. E.
Egerton, W. T. Tufnell, H.
Greene, T. Vere, Sir C. B.
Heathcote, Sir W.
Hector, C. J. TELLERS.
Hodgson, R. Pakington, J. S.
Holmes, W, Lascelles, hon. W. S.M.

Mr. Cresswell moved the addition of a clause to prohibit the consumption of beer on the premises. There was abundance of evidence to show that the beer-shops were sinks of crime and debauchery. Mr. Thomas gave testimony, also, that they greatly encouraged illicit distillation, whereby in the town of Manchester alone there was a loss to the revenue of 50,000l. a-year. He did not propose by this clause to interfere with vested interests, but to restrict its operations perspectively.

Mr. Pakington

opposed the clause, as he doubted whether, even if it were passed, it would effect the good the hon. and learned Gentleman expected from it. There was no doubt it would be open to a great deal of evasion.

Clause brought up and read a first time.

The committee divided on the question that the clause be read a second time —Ayes 18; Noes 29: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.
Barrington, Viscount Lascelles, hon W. S.
Blackburne, I. Nicholl, J.
Burr, H. Palmer, G.
Dundas, C. W. D. Parker, R. T.
Egerton, W. Plumptre, J. P.
Greene, T. Sotheron, T. E.
Grimsditch, T. Vere, Sir C. B.
Hodgson R.
Holmes, W. TELLERS.
Hughes, W. B. Cresswell, C.
Jones, J. Kelly, F.

House resumed.

Committee to sit again.