§ Order for Third Reading read.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he could not altogether approve of this Bill, because he thought it would prevent the comfort of the working classes when they were taking their recreation and pleasure by excursion trains on Sundays. By this Bill, when an excursion train landed its visitors after one o'clock on Sunday, it would be impossible for them to obtain any refreshment, for if 526 they ordered dinner, by the time it was got ready two o'clock would arrive, and then they would all be turned out, whatever the weather might be. Was the piety of the age so extreme that persons were not to be able to obtain needful refreshment on Sundays? If so, why did they not legislate for the rich as they did for the poor? Why did they not close the clubhouses of the rich on Sunday, and prevent them from going to Greenwich to eat whitebait, or to Richmond to eat turtle and venison? It was said that travellers were exempted from the operation of this Bill, but the magistrates had come to the decision that pleasure seekers were not travellers under the Statute, and if this Bill passed, every man who went out of town on a Sunday must go with a knapsack on his back. Such legislation was not to be tolerated. A vast number of persons were of opinion that, after the due observance of the Sabbath, the more recreation there was for the working classes the better it was for them and their morals. He believed that excursion trains, instead of promoting drunkenness, acted as a check upon intemperance. It was a mistake to suppose that there was more drunkenness on Sundays than on any other day. Inquiries had been made in nine of the largest cities in the kingdom as to the number of charges of drunkenness on Whit Sunday, and it was found that not more than thirty-four persons were charged with drunkenness out of a population of 1,000,000, being only 1 in 30,000. He could not, therefore, consent to a measure which proposed to inflict so much injustice on the community.
§ MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, if it could be shown that the Bill bore unequally on the poor he would at once withdraw it; but he must assert that it would have no such effect. It would bear equally on all classes, and in no way interfere with the rational amusements and recreations of the people. He had, at the request of persons engaged in the trade, added an hour to the period during which publicans could keep open on Sunday, namely, ten instead of nine o'clock, and he believed with that concession they were perfectly satisfied. He believed that the Bill would not interfere with rational amusements, or prevent the working people from availing themselves of the cheap excursion trains in any way, while at the same time he felt certain it would prevent a great deal of immorality and vice.
Mr. H. BERKELEYsaid, that the 527 alteration of the hour from nine o'clock to ten did not at all meet his objection to the Bill.
§ MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he could state that this legislation sprang from the poor and it was at their request that the House was now asked to pass this Bill. He believed that if the Bill went further, and closed public-houses and beer-shops during the whole of Sundays, it would meet with the acquiescence of all the respectable and intelligent portion of the working classes.
§ LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he would not support this Bill if it were legislation of a partial description. The hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) quite misunderstood the Bill, for if it passed, neither the rich nor the poor would be able to remain in taverns and public-houses after a certain hour on Sundays. He believed that it would be the desire of the poor that the public-houses should be still further limited in their hours, if not altogether closed, on Sundays. In Scotland all public-houses were closed during the entire Sunday, and the result was excellent; for there had been a most material diminution in the number of persons who were charged with drunkenness on Sundays, and the aspect of the larger towns was completely changed.
§ MR. BANKESsaid, he only doubted whether this Bill went far enough. There was a strong feeling out of doors in favour of this Bill. It was, indeed, the only subject upon which the public had manifested a unanimous opinion during the present Session.
§ MR. W. J. FOXsaid, that the concession of an extra hour at night was no concession to the parties for whom the hon. Member for Bristol had put in a plea. Those persons were not those who wished to sit in a public-house an hour longer at night, but who wished, when they availed themselves of the opportunity which the excursion trains afforded them for enjoying the country air, to obtain that refreshment of which they stood in need.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad that this Bill was likely to become law. He thought that persons who were going out by excursion trains were travellers in every proper sense of the word, and he could not conceive that any magistrate would levy penalties upon publicans who sold beer to persons who were going by train from one part of the country to another. Therefore these persons could not be inconvenienced by the present Bill.
§ MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he considered that, if the Bill were attempted to be carried out, those people who now resorted to public-houses on the Sunday would take to drinking in secret. He believed as the law was generally interpreted excursionists were not regarded as travellers.
MR. LANGTONsaid, that even under the present law publicans in Bristol had been fined heavily for supplying refreshments to excursionists.
Bill read 3a, and passed.