HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc182-206
* MR. HENRY BERKELEY

having presented petitions from places in Somersetshire and Gloucestershire, for the repeal of the Sunday Beer Bill, said—Sir, I am about to ask this House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Act of last Session for the further regulation of the Sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day. The House may remember, that when that Bill was passed into a law, it was hardly known to any Members of this House. At the back of the Bill were the names of three Members generally respected in this House, and those names, I may almost say, would be warrant for any measure they might bring forward; but in this instance, I have no doubt, their views were erroneous, and their usual sagacity was at fault when they committed themselves in this Bill to an Act of Parliament which I believe to be contrary to the interests of the great mass of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, when this Beer Bill passed last Session, I ventured—unfortunately, much too late—on the third reading to take objections to its principle, and to point out that it would be an Act very much encroaching on the comforts and recreations of a highly respectable portion of Her Majesty's subjects, and that it was a Bill unequal and one-sided in its operations, encroaching on the pleasures of the working classes, but leaving the wealthier classes entirely untouched; a style of legislation which, as I apprehend, is at this time of day, highly objectionable. Such were the objections which I ventured to urge, and the very first Sunday on which this Act came into operation, that which I had foreseen was proved to demonstration. Thousands of the working classes who had gone forth in the morning to get a genial breath of fresh air in the country, returned after ten o'clock at night, and found that they were thrown on a town where every place of refreshment was barred against them. What was the consequence? Great discontent, almost amounting to riot, and the police were called on to do their most unpleasant, and, I will say, un-English duty, which they did with that quietude and firmness which mark the character of the corps. Now, since that time, every succeeding Sunday has shown more forcibly, the injustice and severity of the Act. I do not believe I stand alone in this House in thinking that one of the greatest blessings you can bestow on the working classes of this country is the facility now afforded them of going forth and witnessing the beauties of nature and art at a distance from their homes. Fifteen years ago there were thousands of Her Majesty's subjects who lived and died within five miles of the place of their birth, without ever having visited a spot beyond it. Thousands of the inhabitants of this island have lived and died without ever having seen the sea. I say that the increased power of locomotion now placed within their reach tends to expand the mind, and is a leading step towards education. Yet there are those pious ascetics who would stand by and see the departure of a Sunday train laden with a load of human happiness, fathers, mothers, and children going forth on the tiptoe of expectation, to see the beauties of nature, to behold the wonders of the deep, and pass a happy and innocent day, at once uniting pleasure with health—who would stand by and say the steam-engine so employed was a device of the Evil One, and a snare of the Devil. They would say that those working men, who had been employed six days out of the seven in a smoky city, with half-ventilated houses, and a half-drainage pervading them, should pass the seventh day in some dingy chapel or church, listening to the oily outpourings of some Stiggins, or trembling at the blatant bellowing of some Boanerges. I do not envy those pious gentlemen their feelings. They may be very good religionists, but I think they are very bad Christians. Let me not be understood as advocating the absence of the observance of religious rites, or as intending to cast any slur upon the sincere professors of religion. Far from it; that is not my intention. I can, on the contrary, show you that those who are thought godless for resorting to Sunday trains for fresh air are a God-fearing portion of the people. It is a fact that wherever these Sunday trains deposit the inhabitants of distant parts—the people of this metropolis, for instance—the chapels and churches in those places are found to overflow. Speaking from my own experience, I can say, it is a custom for Sunday trains to depart from the city of Bristol to the neighbouring watering places—Weston-super-Mare and Clevedon, and for citizens to go by those trains sufficiently early to attend places of Divine worship on their arrival, and then repair to the seaside to spend a day of happiness with their families, returning to Bristol in the evening. Again, since locomotion has brought Bath and Bristol, though twelve miles apart, within twenty minutes communication, it is not an uncommon custom, at some seasons of the year, for the inhabitants of Bristol to visit Bath, and attend Divine worship in the abbey there, returning to their own cathedral at Bristol in the evening. I have said thus much to protect myself against the charge of advocating want of religion in the people. But it is not only on account of the hardship to the working classes and the interference with their means of recreation that I object to this measure, but it is on account also of the one-sided way in which it operates. This can be very well shown if the House will allow me to trace the course of one of the working classes on the Sunday, and then to follow one of the higher classes. The poor man, the working man, when he has determined to take his pleasure by an excursion train, quits his house very early in the morning. He has not much to lock up. He has no well-found larder, no well-stored cellar, and if he leave any living thing in the house, when he takes his wife and children, it is the cat. He goes forth with his key in his pocket, and he depends for his refreshment on the public-houses he may meet on his way. He goes down by the train, and arrives at a time when you have closed the houses against him. Well, then, no dinner can he have. It is in vain to talk about your Act permitting a man to be fed under the pretence of his being a bonâ fide traveller. Why, the very name at the present moment, after the conflicting decisions of your magistrates, is so terrible to your innkeepers, that they exclude such a man immediately, unless dressed in broad cloth, and attended by a servant. He can get nothing to eat or drink, and thus deprived of his dinner, on his return he finds himself too late to obtain supper, and thus, dinnerless and supperless, he goes to bed. By the present hours of closing he is defrauded of his dinner and supper. That was not the way in which they ought to tamper with the working classes. Now, let them look at the course of the rich man. He goes forth, wends his way to whatsoever city he pleases, and he should like to know the inn that would refuse him admitance at any hour. He should like to find such a case. He got his luncheon or dinner, and returned at his leisure to London. What did it signify to him that public-houses were shut? He could do without his Bass or his or one day; or, if not, there was his well-stocked cellar at home. But suppose he had not, then there was that unlicensed victualler's house—his club, to resort to. He could get there at any hour, and what did it matter to him that the public-houses were shut? Then he said that the poor man was differently treated from the rich man. To a poor man, Sunday should bring recreation and a breath of fresh air, which was everything. Why, the primrose or cowslip, or the meanest wild flower plucked under a hedge by the child of a poor man has more value in that child's eyes than the richest exotic had to the wealthy possessor of a green-house. Why, then, should they interfere with the poor man and his enjoyments? That was not the way to deal with the working man in the nineteenth century. The next point to which he would allude was the monstrous contradictions, anomalies, and absurdities daily perpetrated by all the family of paid Midas and Radamanthus throughout the country. Every one of the great unpaid had different ways of interpreting this Statute. Take, for example, some instances he would give them— On Sunday, April 23, the landlord of the Angel Inn, Sutton, had his brother and sister to see him from London. As they were having supper, preparatory to their return journey, at about twenty minutes past ten o'clock, two policemen knocked at the door of the house and were admitted. After looking into the parlour, and such public rooms, they walked into the private apartment of the landlord, where the family were at supper. Seeing two decanters of wine on the table, they departed, and on Friday the master of the house had to appear at the Epsom Court, and was fined 10s., and 15s. costs, although he informed the magistrates that the lady and gentleman were his brother and sister. The magisterial answer was, 'then you must not have your sister and brother to supper.' Persons going to Jack Straw's Castle, Hampstead, to dine there, are held to be travellers by Mr. Long, of Marylebone Police Court; but, on the other hand, Mr. Paynter, of Wandsworth Police Court, holds that persons going to Putney, even if walking, are not travellers, and that the exception must be confined to persons travelling from place to place, through obligation or duty, and not for mere pleasure. Likeminded is Mr. Trail, of Greenwich, who holds that people coming from London, Croydon, Bayswater, and Dartford, to Blackheath—one of the lungs of London—for pleasure, are not travellers, because the Act never intended that persons leaving their homes for amusement should be considered travellers. On the other hand, the more liberal bench of Ilford, Essex, held that a man going five miles along the Mile End Road, for any purpose, is a traveller. On the other side of the Severn, the justices of petty sessions at Pontypool, hold that going three miles by rail from Merthyr to Twedyrlieu is travelling, within the meaning of the Act. Mr. Hardwick thinks that a man coming from a journey by rail omnibus, and stopping for a pint of beer at a public house near his own home, is not a traveller; but Mr. Norton, of Lambeth, thinks a man walking from London to Norwood, and stopping for beer within a mile and a half of his own door, is a traveller. The Rhadamanthus of Highgate says a man walking from Hampstead to Highgate is not such a traveller that he may drink beer; and Alderman Cubitt holds that the drivers of omnibuses from any place out of town are not travellers. A similar decision as to railway guards and labourers was given by the justices of Chelmsford. The Lancashire justices at Salford, at Hoo Green, hold that persons who on Sundays go four, five, or six miles on foot or horseback, or in carnages, may not drink on the way, the presiding magistrate evidently deciding it on the ground that a man may, or must not, or should not move about on Sunday for pleasure. A different interpretation is put on the Act by Derbyshire justices, who, by their decisions, allow any person going six or seven miles, whatever be the reason of their going, to moisten their clay as they go. From numerous places in all parts of the country the complaint is, the justices have laid down no rule to guide the publican in deciding traveller or not. Do what he will, he can in no way escape the fangs of the law.

The complaint was universal—that the magistrates had laid down no rule to guide their decisions as to what was and what was not a traveller. He had a letter, from a person of great respectability, which showed the state of the great port of Liverpool— The operation of the Sunday Beer Bill in Liverpool and neighbourhood is of a very contradictory and oppressive character, and numerous informations have been laid against licensed victuallers for infringing it. The Act is carried out very stringently at Liverpool, and great inconvenience, is experienced here in consequence of it, from the circumstance that a vast number of strangers are constantly arriving from, and departing for various parts of the world, by ship, rail, or steamer; and passengers are continually refused admission into the houses of licensed victuallers, who would have informations laid against them, and they would then be put to the trouble and expense of proving that their guests had been bonâ fide travellers, in many cases involving an impossibility. The result is, that such passengers fall into the hands of lodging-house keepers and others, most of whom contrive to have stocks of ale, porter, and spirits in hand, and the licensed victualler is thus deprived of the legitimate object of his business, which flows into channels never intended by the Legislature, and thus leads also to the direct effect of defrauding the Excise. The clause in the Act exempting a bonâ fide traveller is construed in a very singular manner in this neighbourhood. A person crossing the river Mersey to Seacombe, a distance of three-quarters of a mile, is considered a traveller, and may have refreshment at the nearest public-houses. A person crossing to Birkenhead is not a traveller, and he can get no admittance as such. At Egremont, two miles down the river, a person from Liverpool is a traveller; while at New Brighton, a mile lower down, he is not a traveller. At Rock Ferry, three miles up the river, a person from Liverpool is a traveller; but at Eastham, six miles from Liverpool, he is not a traveller. At Runcorn, eighteen miles from Liverpool, myself and wife were refused admittance on the ground that we were not travellers. Such are the various readings of the word bonâ fide traveller; and this Act, in the hands of our justices, has been a complete scourge to the people. Last Sunday afternoon, May 5, I drove with a friend to the village of Wavertree, three miles from Liverpool. Before we got there the rain fell in torrents, and we were indebted to an intimate acquaintance with the proprietor of the hotel for shelter. While we were there a funeral passed, attended by 214 persons all on foot. It was raining fast at the time, the distance from the house of the deceased to the church was about three-quarters of a mile. They returned in procession to the village and broke up. Now, although it was still raining, and many of them had come two and three miles previously, they were refused admittance into the hotel where we were, the landlord declining the risk of an information. Our stipendiary magistrate has decided that a seaman is a traveller when he is going to sea, and he may have refreshment, but that he is not a traveller when he returns from sea, because he has arrived at the end of his journey. Innumerable other cases could be adduced of the inconsistent readings and baneful operation of this Act, but the above will slightly show the manner in which it interferes with the comfort and convenience of the public in Liverpool and its neighbourhood. He had no reason for specially praising licensed victuallers, but they were generally a very respectable body of men, and if they were not it was the fault of the upper classes and the magistrates, for there was no body of men so completely under the surveillance of the magistracy as they were, and it reflected deeply on the magistrates of this country if they were not as they ought to be. But no men should be treated in such a way as they were. If they were in Russia they would not be subject to worse treatment. Why were not the licensed victuallers to have the same privileges as other classes? Why were they to be interfered with, and not allowed to have their relations to supper? That alone rendered a repeal of this Act imperative—for any law so loose in its language as to render the practice of such tyranny possible should not be on the statute book. To exhibit in a stronger light the hardships and tyranny of this Act, will the House pardon me if I put an hypothetical case? Let me call their attention to the clubs of this City. At one of these clubs, at half-past eleven o'clock on Sunday night, there are sitting at supper in this unlicensed victualler's house one of the metropolitan magistrates—a most respectable man—and his brother. He had been, say to Richmond or to Greenwich, where he had enjoyed his venison or whitebait, and its usual accompaniments. No one would presume to question his worship's right to these enjoyments. But returning to town, in rather a hungry state, there he sits, at half-past eleven o'clock, eating the devilled legs of a turkey, and washing the Cayenne pepper down with whiskey punch, &c. At twelve o'clock they go home—he would not say ebrii, nor vino cibo que gravati—but comfortable. The next morning the magistrate went in due time to the police court, where the very first case brought before him was that of the licensed victualler who had been guilty of giving his brother a beefsteak and a bottle of wine on the Sunday night. And what happened? Why, this very magistrate, with the taste of the devilled turkey and the whiskey punch still in his mouth, knocks the publican down with the Statute, and fines him 1l. 5s. That certainly put me in mind of the words of the poet— ———"Handy, dandy, Which is the justice, and which is the thief? I will close my opinions by quoting those of two metropelitan police magistrates on the impolicy of this Act—Mr. Corrie, the magistrate of Clerkenwell police court, said, "It is too stringent on the trader and throws an arduous and impossible onus on the officers." Mr. Norton said, "The Act is one which, in my opinion, must be repealed, as it is not suited to the convenience or necessities of the public." I now come to the purpose for which the Act was passed. That was to check drunkenness on the Sabbath. Now, had it had that effect? I most conscientiously and sincerely believe it has not. It had been truly said that you could not make a man moral by Act of Parliament. You could not make them either religious or moral, but you may make them hypocrites. You have stopped drinking at certain hours in public-houses, but the consequence was that it went on in holes and corners. Drunkenness had been created in every corner. As long as it was in public-houses, under the surveillance of the police, you knew the evil, but when it became contraband, and went into holes and corners, it was worse for morals, and worse for the people, than when it was under the surveillance of the police. I find, from evidence before me, that drunkenness takes place in those shops which are permitted to sell small beer. They were called three-halfpenny beer-shops. At these places alcoholic drinks might be had to any extent. Not only there did it take place, but drunkenness was carried on also in coffee-shops, and worse than that, in low brothels, from which persons resorted to "public hells," producing a state of immorality frightful to contemplate.

There was a Committee last year which pointed out this fact, that at these shops drink might be had to any extent. If that was so in 1854, the evil had been increased a hundredfold in 1855. In seaport towns the effect was still worse than in other towns. Poor Jack, on returning home from sea, generally met Poll and Sail; and if they had a strong pull at his pocket heretofore, what must it be when they became contraband sellers of drink. It had been said that drunkenness had diminished in 1855, and was less than in previous years, and that, therefore, sobriety had been secured by the operation of this Bill. Nothing, however, could be more erroneous. In 1852–3–4, drunkenness prevailed of course to a greater extent than in 1855; for it ought not to be forgotten that we were now under the pressure of a war, high prices, and diminished wages. There had also been a considerable number of drinking characters taken off by the war, some 30,000 or 40,000 young men having been removed from the country by recruiting for the army. In addition to the demand for the army and the navy, there had been a large number of young gentlemen, who used to amuse themselves by searching hen-roosts, wiring hares, and finishing their amusements in the taproom, who were now become the Bashi Bazouks of our militia. But let the House see what the returns would show— A return of persons taken into custody by the police for drunkenness from twelve o'clock on the Saturday night previous to Whit Sunday, and up to eleven o'clock on Whit Monday, 1854, obtained by Mr. Stephens, chief of police, Birmingham, from the chiefs of police of ten of the largest towns in England, including, according to the census of 1851, a population of 1,414,403 souls. The return was made at the request of Mr. Joseph Stinton, a town councillor of Birmingham, and given in evidence by that gentleman before a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public-houses on the 20th of June, 1854. Mr. Stinton remarked, 'Whit Sunday is a great holiday in the country, and I thought that would be a very fair day to test the drunkenness of the country. I will now read Mr. Stinton's return for 1854, and also a similar return obtained by a gentleman in whom every reliance might be placed, for Whitsuntide, 1855. The numbers returned for the two periods in the several large towns are as follow—

In 1854— In 1855—
In 1854—Birmingham 5 In 1855—Birmingham 6
In 1854—Bristol 6 In 1855—Bristol 6
In 1854—Bath 0 In 1855—Bath 2
In 1854—Bradford 1 In 1855—Bradford 0
In 1854—Hull 1 In 1855—Hull 3
In 1854—Leicester 2 In 1855—Leicester 2
In 1854—Leeds 4 In 1855—Leeds 2
In 1854—Liverpool 51 In 1855—Liverpool 87
In 1854—Nottingham 0 In 1855—Nottingham 3
In 1854—Sheffield 15 In 1855—Sheffield 7
Total, 85 Total, 118
Consequently there was an increase of drunkenness, since the passing of the Act, of thirty-three cases. Such were some of the reasons why I ask the House to grant me a Committee to inquire into the operation of this Act. In the first place I am of opinion that the Act tends very much to the inconvenience and discomfort of the working classes, while it leaves the rich completely unfettered. I also contend that the Act has not had the effect which it was intended it should produce. It was one of a class of Bills called "Bills for the better observance of the Sabbath." I remember once reading in the Examiner an article, in which the writer said— These Bills ought not to be called measures for the better observance of the Sabbath, but for the 'bitter' observance of the Sabbath. This was indeed a "bitter" observance Act. It was an Act very much encouraged by those gentlemen who had descended lineally from the person who was found Hanging of his cat on Monday, For killing of a mouse on Sunday, and who were determined to put down all who amused themselves on the Sabbath Day. But I consider that the House, in legislating that way, is not adopting the right means for obtaining the end it seeks. I read, some time ago, in Mr. Dickens's Household Words, an article referring to the very Act which I am now discussing, in which it was said that they were legislating as if they had some great ruffian in their minds, whom they wished to punish at all risks. In the case of this Bill one Sloggins was supposed to be the object, a man always with a black eye and a bulldog, who beat his wife, and boxed with his neighbours, and was perpetually drunk; but to catch this Sloggins, you punish the families of Simmons, of Perkins, of Tomkins, and Hopkins. You do not care what happens to these individuals so that you get at the man with the black eye and the bull dog. So it is, for statistics show that one man in 5,000 is a drunkard, and to punish that one man you punish the 4,999 who are not drunkards. And, after all, you do not get at Sloggins; you cannot get at him, and he would get drunk, and no one could prevent him. Why, then, did you not do with him as you do with the Slogginses who beat their wives? You have passed an Act of Parliament which throws upon them heavy penalties for their brutality, but which did not persecute the well-disposed. Why not punish Sloggins for getting drunk, and not punish the innocent in order to reach a man whom you really do not touch. Drunkenness is a terrible curse, and should be punished and repressed. Every one would applaud such a course, and none more than the publicans themselves. I hope my right hon. Friend will give me the chance of proving some of the allegations which I have made. I have given some proofs of the evil operation of the Act. But if a fair inquiry is granted, and it eventuates differently to what I expect, I will be the first to submit; but, as I have a full conviction that the people of this country are suffering great discomfort from the present law; and as I am sure that the great body of victuallers are placed in positions of great difficulty by it, and that it is a measure oppressing the humbler classes, without interfering with the rich, I will leave the matter in the hands of the House, and therefore now move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Act for regulating the Sale of Beer on the Sabbath.

MR. COBBETT

said, he willingly seconded the Motion, being convinced that inquiry was necessary, and that the Act required revision. The Manchester Courier of the 28th of October stated that the open space near the Cathedral church presented a singular spectacle the preceding Sunday afternoon; that no one could fail to be struck by the crowd of decently-dressed men and women, tender infants and almost equally tender mothers, huddled together near the north door; that they were exposed, dripping and shivering as they were, to all the inclemency of a cold and inhospitable day, and that two policemen, who might have been otherwise better employed, were placed there to keep order. Those persons were the fathers, mothers, godfathers, and godmothers of infants brought from places miles off to be christened at the old church; there was no room in the church for them; that a landlord, whose house they resorted to for shelter, had been fined under the Sale of Beer Act of last Session, notwithstanding it was proved that the persons in his house at the time had come from Bury, a distance of seven miles; and that, consequently, all houses being closed against them, they were thus deprived of the means of shelter in very inclement weather. He had also received a letter from a gentleman at Oldham, stating that the Act was complained of chiefly by persons attending funerals in that district—that in one case in severe weather a clergyman, being a magistrate of forty-five years' standing, sent to the landlord of a public-house near the churchyard, requesting him to open his house to give the attendants refreshment, hut that the landlord had been fined under the new Act, notwithstanding the clergyman wrote to the bench, stating that it was done at his request. In the north of England funerals were much more numerously attended than in the southern part of the kingdom—not only were all relations invited, but acquaintances; and consequently there was often a long funeral procession, perhaps conveying a body some miles to the place of interment. He thought it most unjust that they might not be allowed to obtain refreshment while waiting for the clergyman, or even afterwards. He hoped the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) would define what was meant by a "traveller." According to Johnson's Dictionary, a traveller was a wayfarer, and he wished that word had been inserted in the Act instead of "traveller;" for he was certain it would have received a more liberal construction. He believed that magistrates were very much puzzled, and had no distinct notion of what a traveller was in the Act in question. No word admitted of more definitions. The Travellers' Club, he believed, did not admit a man to be a traveller unless he had been out of Europe; but of course that could not be the sense in which the word was used in the Act. Anybody would say a gypsy was a traveller, for he was never anything else. Were gypsies to be exempt from the operation of the Act? They might say truly, "We are travellers, and bonâ fide travellers, too." Then, again, what was the distinction the hon. Member drew between a traveller and a bonâ fide traveller? Some magistrates said a bonâ fide traveller meant something more than a traveller, but they did not know exactly what more; and others that it meant a traveller travelling. If the hon. Member would give the phrase a distinct definition he would greatly assist the magistrates and give valuable information to the country. He (Mr. Cobbett) must, however, say that he thought they were getting into a vein of legislation which, unless they acted prudently, was of a most dangerous tendency. He did not allude to what had happened in Hyde Park last Sunday, but he thought the House would do well to look to the condition of affairs in America, the accounts from which stated that the ferment which had resulted from a similar course of legislation was so great that there was a regular organized opposition to settle the matter at the hustings. And it was already asserted that the "liquor question" would materially affect the election of the President of the country. It was very desirable that the House should as soon as possible institute an inquiry into the working of the present Act, which would, of course, result in the settlement of the question, whether it should be repealed or not. It was impossible, however, he feared, that a Committee would, if appointed, be able to close its labours in the present Session, and therefore there ought to be an understanding to that effect, so that the country should not be deceived. He must also complain of the hurried manner in which the Bill had been passed through Parliament last Session. He understood that not one of its stages had been gone through until after 12 o'clock, so that it was a piece of midnight legislation upon a subject which ought not to have been dealt with except upon the most mature consideration.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he did not concur in all the opinions that had been expressed by the hon. gentleman the Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), nor was he prepared to admit the force of all the arguments on which he had founded his proposition; yet he was prepared, as he said some time ago, to consent on the part of the Government to an inquiry into the operation of the Act of last Session. He must say at the same time that a very incorrect idea would he entertained from the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion as to the way in which that Act was passed, and as to the motive with which the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten), proposed it to the House of Commons. It must he borne in mind that a very strong feeling was expressed throughout the country in favour, not of the limited Bill proposed, but of the total closing of public-houses during the Lord's Day. In the Committee, over which his right hon. Friend the Judge Advocate so ably presided, a great deal of evidence was received, from which it appeared that Sunday was the great day on which drunkenness prevailed among the working classes; and that on Monday mornings the greatest number of them were summoned for that offence before the Police magistrates. The question for the House to consider was, how they were to remove that temptation to drunkenness by a limitation of the hours during which public-houses should be open on Sundays, without interfering with the comforts and convenience of the great mass of the people; for he readily admitted that the latter object should not be lost sight of. The Bill underwent discussion, and was modified in passing through the House. He thought the licensed vic-tuallers were prepared to agree to the Bill as it was modified by the House, and that there was no difference of opinion about it amongst the great body of the people. As to the operation of the Act, from all the information he had received, he had arrived at a different conclusion from that adopted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe). He believed the effect of the Act to be beneficial, but he should not go into statistics, because he thought it would be infinitely better that the statistics on both sides should be examined and sifted in the Committee, than that they should be stated in the House, where allegations could be made without being subject to cross-examination, and therefore must be received with all the qualifications that belong to exparte statements. He (Sir G. Grey) would allow an opportunity for the fair inquiry which the hon. Gentleman asked for, and he thought the hon. Gentleman had acted judiciously in seeking for an inquiry rather than in asking the House to retrace its steps and repeal the Act. All the inconvenience complained of was assuredly not chargeable upon the Act. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was directed against all limitation of the hours during which public-houses should be opened on the Sunday; but the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the year 1848 a limitation was made, and it was enacted that public-houses should be closed until after the ordinary hour of divine service on the morning of Sundays. There was, at the commencement, as much objection to the operation of that Act as there was to the present one; but before the Committee over which his right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, presided, they received a great deal of evidence respecting the operation of that Act, and the testimony was universally in favour of it, in consequence of the beneficial effects produced by it in diminishing drunkenness and promoting the comforts of the people, including the licensed victuallers themselves, and it was admitted that not one of them would wish to have it altered. With regard to the statements of the hon. Member for Bristol, and the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr.Cobbett), as to the conflicting opinions of the magistrates, some of the decisions appeared to be so extraordinary that he should doubt, without further evidence, unless the hon. Gentlemen themselves were personally acquainted with the facts, that any magistrates could so decide. [Mr. H. BERKELEY: I gave the names.] He would beg further to observe that the exception with respect to travellers was not one that for the first time was introduced into the Bill of his hon. Friend. The exception was introduced into the Bill of 1848, and when the law was administered by different tribunals they could not fail to find conflicting decisions, because different views would be taken of an Act of Parliament by the different magistrates who had to decide the question. No doubt there was difficulty in deciding who were bonâ fide travellers, and there must be conflicting decisions on the subject; and it was therefore desirable that in this Committee some means should be adopted to procure uniformity in the administration of the law. With respect to the inconvenience that had been experienced at Manchester, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett), who had referred to the subject must know, as a lawyer, that previous to this Act, and even previous to the Act of 1848, it was illegal for a public-house to be open during the hours of divine service on Sundays. He (Sir G. Grey) believed that the complaints of this Act did not come from the people generally, but came from a limited class. He believed, if universal suffrage could be acted upon with reference to the question, it would be found that the desire of the people would be that the public-houses should he closed throughout the Sunday. He believed the objections to the Act came from the licensed victuallers and publicans, and not from the lower class of the people, but from those above them, who found their convenience affected by the operation of the Act. If there was to be an inquiry, they must have a full and fair one, and it would not be satisfactory if it were conducted in a small Committee just at the end of the Session. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Berkeley), wished to have the Committee now appointed, he (Sir G. Grey) should have no objection to the nomination of a fair one, who might arrange their course of proceedings, call for documentary information on the subject, and so long as a full attendance was obtained, prosecute their inquiry; but it was for the hon. Gentleman himself to consider whether the inquiry could be fully prosecuted before the commencement of the next Session.

MR. BRADY

said, he must express his satisfaction that the Government had consented to the proposed inquiry; but he would most strongly urge the hon. Member for Bristol not to postpone the appointment of the Committee till next Session, for he was convinced that if he did so some new obstacle would then be interposed. It was impossible to stop drunkenness by legislation, because he knew for a certainty that in the low public-houses and coffee-shops of London, spirits could be obtained at all hours of the day and night. He fearlessly asserted that the general and universal opinion of the people of this country was opposed to this measure, and if legislation of such a character were carried to a much greater extent, a feeling would be aroused which it would be difficult to repress. He trusted that the Government therefore would be warned in time.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

said, that from the first he had stated that, when this Act had been allowed time to manifest its operation throughout the country, he would support an inquiry into it, if it were deemed necessary. He was not so bigoted to the measure, though his name was attached to it, as to wish to pass it to the injury of any one; and if the hon. Member for Bristol could substantiate his case, and particularly that portion of it in which he stated that the effect of this Act had been rather to increase than to diminish drunkenness, then he (Mr. W. Patten) would assist the hon. Member in his endeavour to obtain its repeal. It would be the duty of the Committee to inquire into and decide on the cases which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Bristol; but, with respect to some of those cases, it must be stated that, if the hon. Member had not been more fortunate as to his information on general points than he had been in those cases, he would find that his information was not so well-founded as he thought. The hon. Member had cited the interpretation put upon the Act by the magistrates of Liverpool, and the neighbourhood, and he (Mr. W. Patten) could assure him that he had only correctly stated two out of all the cases he had mentioned. At the same time, he (Mr. W. Patten) was bound to say that he had watched the operation of this Act, and saw that there were defects in it. The term "bonâ fide traveller" had led to a variety of decisions; he believed, however, that the number of these had been considerably exaggerated, but, at the same time, he thought than an Act of Parliament, in order to be just, ought not to he liable to a great variety of opinions on the part of the magistrates who had to carry it into effect. The hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett) had called upon him for an interpretation of the term "bonâ fide traveller;" he might with great justice say that the term was none of his, as he had drawn the Bill without that particular sentence; but he was told that he ought to make the Act conformable to those which had gone before, and he, therefore, put in the terms in which the former Acts had been framed. He had, aided by the best legal advice, drawn a clause defining the term "bonâ fide traveller," but had omitted it, because he was told by some licensed victuallers, to whom he had submitted the clause, that he had better leave it to the magistrates to act upon the old definition of the term, which they had been accustomed to do from time immemorial. It was stated that the present Act interfered with the comforts of the lower classes, and had been introduced by the upper classes. There never was a greater mistake than this. The circumstances of the case were as follows:—a Committee had sat upon the public-house question for two years; before this Committee the licensed victuallers were represented by their agents and evidence taken, but in consequence of the shoals of petitions which poured in—with the signatures of not less than 480,000 persons—begging that public-houses might be closed on a Sunday, he was requested to take up the matter and to bring in a Bill restricting the hours of public-houses being open on Sunday. He never received a letter from the upper classes on this subject; the letters he received were from mechanics, from mechanics' institutes and literary societies, and from persons what had in his own county devoted their lives to improving and instructing the lower classes. He never received a letter from a gentleman which affected him as to his decision on the Bill. The Bill might, or might not, be a wrong one; but he could, at all events, state that it had sprung from a body of men who felt upon that subject with an intensity which the House was little aware of. He would not undertake to say what would be the result of an appeal to universal suffrage upon that point; but he was perfectly convinced that a large and not an uninfluential portion of the people of this country had ardently devoted themselves to the temperance cause as a most important means of raising the moral and physical condition of their fellow countrymen.

MR. HENRY BERKELEY

said, he must beg to explain that it was never stated that the Bill was brought in by the upper classes, but that it had the effect of creating a difference between the upper and lower classes.

MR. WILSON PATTEN

said, that it was never intended that the Act should give rise to that difference. It was said that the rich had their clubs, but the poor had not. He had turned his attention to the question of these clubs, but he was assured that they were constituted on such grounds that they could not by any possibility come within the operation of an Act of Parliament. He agreed in the opinion that, if they prevented the sale of liquors to the poor on a Sunday, they should also do so to the rich; but he thought that there had been some exaggeration with regard to the habits of the rich at these clubs. He belonged to one of the most popular clubs in London, situated in Pall Mall, and he had on Sunday last asked the steward to take notice of the spirituous liquors and wines distributed during the restricted hours on that day; and it was found that in the height of the London season, in a club numbering about 1000 members, during the restricted hours only two bottles of wine, one glass of brandy, and one glass of Curacoa were ordered. It was stated that the Bill was brought in on very short notice, and that the public were not aware of its provisions; but he had, early in the Session, given notice of his intention to introduce the Bill, and had postponed bringing it in until the Committee made their Report. He was in continual correspondence with licensed victuallers and others, in various parts of the country, who made inquiries of him with reference to the Bill, and this proved that the public were aware of his intention to introduce it. When the Report of the Committee came out, it contained much more stringent Resolutions than he had at first introduced in his Bill, and, feeling that it would be impossible to run counter to them, he adopted and embodied them in his Bill. He was informed that if he altered the hours adopted by the Committee, and relaxed some other restrictions, the Bill would not only not be opposed, but would be supported in that House, and receive the unanimous support of the licensed victuallers. He had since been told that the information given him was erroneous, but he was induced to believe it at the time. He had taken pains to conciliate all parties, and what, he asked, had been the operation of the Act through out the country? He believed that in the Metropolis, and other large towns, inconvenience had been felt by those persons who were accustomed to go out for recreation on the Sunday, but with respect to other parts of the country he had received accounts of the great good effected by the Act. The object of the measure was to put a stop to the state of drunkenness which was proved to have existed before its passing, and if the Act could be shown to have failed in effecting that purpose, he would no longer be its advocate. He did not, however, think that that was the case, and if the proposed Committee, in the appointment of which he was perfectly willing to concur, were fairly constituted, he should be quite ready to abide by the result of its investigation.

MR. WILKINSON

said, he must assert that this was not a fit subject for legislation. No one was more sensible than himself of the evils of intemperance; but he thought it was beginning at the wrong cud to shut up the public-houses. The proper mode was to educate the people, and then they would shun intemperance. Why did not all the Members of that House get drunk on the Sunday? He believed that the habits of the upper classes were much improved of late years, and he hoped to see the improvement extend to all classes. When he was a young man, if a party of a half-a-dozen met, they never thought of separating till they got drunk. He hoped the House would see that this was not a proper subject for legislation.

SIR JOHN WALSH

said, he fully concurred with the bon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. W. Patten) in opinion that the impression prevailing out of doors that this was an aristocratic question, and one on which the upper classes were desirous of legislating against the lower, was most erroneous. On the contrary, he had the fullest conviction that the principal promoters of this kind of legislation were to be found in the ranks of the middling and lower orders; and among the most honest and sincerely religious portion of the community. Nevertheless, he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Wilkinson), that in attempting to legislate on the subject now under discussion, the House was departing from its proper functions, and he believed that when they tried to regulate all the moral habits of society they would not only fail in the attempt, but would bring about a reaction unfavourable to the object they had in view. He thought that objection applied strongly to the Act, the operation of which was now about to be referred to a Select Committee, as well as to other Bills drawn up in a similar spirit, and he could not help hoping that the House would pause before proceeding further in a course of legislation which would alienate the feelings of a large portion of the population, without tending to promote the ultimate success of the meritorious objects contemplated by the authors of such measures.

MR. C. VILLIERS

said, by the last speaker's test, the regulation of public-houses was not a fit subject for legislation; that might be so, but he thought it was rather late to make the discovery, as that had certainly been the policy in this country for the last four centuries at least, and an Act passed a few years ago, causing these houses to be closed earlier on particular days had been, by universal assent, attended with the greatest public advantage. It had been said, that limiting the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors could have no influence on the vice of drunkenness. Let those who held that opinion refer to the evidence taken before the Committee in question. He owned that he went into that inquiry prepossessed himself against interference, and doubting if legislation could do the good intended, but he had been completely converted by the unquestionable proofs to the contrary which had been submitted. In the first place, it was shown beyond doubt, that there were times when the poor were especially tempted to spend their money in drink, to the great injury of their families, by the circumstance of these houses being open when no public convenience required them to be so—for instance, on the nights when they received their wages, followed by a day when they did not work. This was on Saturday night and Sunday morning. A few years since ale and spirit houses might be open the whole of that time; and, upon the concurrent testimony of competent witnesses of every kind, it was shown that in all the great towns of the country, as well as the metropolis, scenes of riot and drunkenness occurred in consequence that were attended with the worst effects to the poor themselves, and which have ceased since the Act was passed closing the houses during those hours. He believed that now neither the publicans nor the poor repented this Act. What had, moreover, struck him peculiarly on the Committee was, the difficulty in getting evidence from the poor themselves against the proposition, which was at that time supported by a greater number of petitions than upon any other subject—namely, that of preventing the sale of intoxicating liquors at all on Sundays, and placing that business upon the same footing of all other trades on that day. He had been anxious himself that both sides should be fully heard, believing himself that such a measure as the petitioners prayed for would not be practicable; but he was told, that though it would probably become very unpopular, if it was passed, yet, that the poorer classes were very unwilling to take any active part against it, and it was stated by very respectable witnesses before the Committee, that many of the working class had, in their presence admitted the infirmity of their own nature with regard to drink, and that many had signed these petitions with the view to getting the Legislature to protect them against temptations that they were of themselves unable to resist. Certainly, during the inquiry, there had been held two great public meetings at Leeds, one of them the largest ever held in that town, to consider the question of closing the public-houses altogether on Sunday, and it was carried at this open-air meeting in the affirmative by a majority of two to one; and at the other one, also a large public meeting, the Maine law was discussed, and a resolution in its favour carried unanimously. He was not himself expressing any opinion in favour of this kind of legislation; but in answer to what is alleged, that this legislation was only aristocratic, or merely emanating from religious bodies, he wished to call the attention of the House to the facts, that meetings of this kind were held last year in different parts of the country, and the same conclusions had been arrived at, though they were attended chiefly by the working people themselves. Then, with reference to the Act of last year, into the operation of which it was proposed now to inquire, he must make one observation on what had fallen from its author, the hon. Member for North Lancashire. He said it was precisely the measure recommended by the Committee over which he presided. That was not exactly the case; it was the rigid part of the whole recommendation of the separatist report from the rest, and proposed as a substantive measure. The Committee were bound not to overlook the very strong evidence which had been adduced before them in favour of closing the public-houses on Sunday, but they were unwilling to impose further restrictions of this kind without proposing, at the same time, some relaxation of the law, which precluded the people from access to places of innocent recreation on that day. The Committee had considered that the Legislature ought to act simultaneously on both recommendations. They had done this, after very full and due consideration, in no way wishing to shackle the religious feelings of the country, or to violate in the least degree the sanctity of the Sabbath. They had, indeed, suggested that it should be left to the discretion of some appropriate authority to determine at what places and at what hours this counter-attraction to the publichouse should be offered. He had no objection to the inquiry that had been now moved for. He should vote for it, and if it were a fair one, he thought nothing but good would result from it, as the truth on this subject might possibly be ascertained by it.

MR. HENLEY

said, he must express his satisfaction at the statement he had just heard, and at the decision of the House to grant an inquiry. The question was a very narrow one, for all that the Act did was to shorten by some three hours the time at which public-houses could be kept open, and it prevented publicans from being harassed by informations to which they sometimes rendered themselves liable from not knowing the time of the commencement and the termination of afternoon services. Every one must wish that the truth should be elicited, and he hoped the Committee would be a good one, and would not hurry the matter over. Many statements had been made with regard to the inconvenience caused by the operation of the Act to the people who went upon excursions and took walks upon Sunday, but he much doubted whether the beneficial effects of the measure would not be found to counterbalance any such inconvenience. He believed that the poor were in favour of the measure, and that if the inquiry were fairly conducted it would appear that it had not given rise to much inconvenience. A large portion of the outcry against the Act had been created by an erroneous idea that it had given rise to the difficulty as to the definition of "bonâ fide travellers," whereas that difficulty, he believed, would occur if the Act were repealed to-morrow.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, he rejoiced that there was a prospect of a full and fair inquiry. He had no doubt the result would show that the people at large were in favour of some such restriction as had been imposed. Much of the unpopularity of the measure arose from the use of the unfortunate term "bonâ fide travellers." He thought it might be desirable to extend the time for the sale of liquors in the summer for the convenience of excursionists. This and other matters had been overlooked last Session, owing to the hurried way in which the Bill was passed. He was convinced there had been much exaggeration as to the effect of the measure. It was his intention to propose that the Crystal Palace should be open to the people on Sundays, and he hoped to have the support on that Motion of all those Gentlemen who professed themselves anxious to promote the moral and social welfare of the working classes.

MR. E. BALL

said, so far as his experience went, he believed the Act at present in operation had been attended with the most beneficial results. Two arguments had, however, been used against the measure which he felt called upon to answer. The first was, that Parliament had no right to legislate in such matters, but should rather leave the moral improvement of the people to the advances of education; and the other was, that all such legislation affected the poor without interfering with the privileges enjoyed by the rich. Now, with respect to the first argument, he would be content to ask, what would be the state of the morals of the people if Parliament was content to leave all such matters to the progress of education? And, with regard to the second, he would simply observe, that if such legislation did not affect the rich, it was just a reason why it should be extended, in order that all classes might be alike subject to its influence.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he was glad it had been decided to have an inquiry on this subject, but still the question remained, when was that inquiry to be? He believed, considering how public opinion was divided upon the matter, that it would be impossible for a Committee fairly to terminate their labours during the present Session; and, even should they do so, no fresh legislation could be devised until the Session following. He should, therefore, advise the postponement of the inquiry. As showing the difference of opinion, and the want of correct information which prevailed upon the matter, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had mentioned that he believed, if the entire country could be polled upon the subject, it would be found in favour of the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday, while, according to the return of the petitions which had been presented upon the subject, it appeared there were 358,000 signatures against the present Bill, as opposed to 128,000 in its favour. This contrariety of opinion showed the desirability of dispensing with the inquiry until it could be conducted in the fairest and fullest manner. They would, too, find some difficulty to get fifteen gentlemen to sit out the dog-days upstairs in order to inquire into the matter, while during the summer it would be impossible to get that amount of information respecting the application of the present Act to excursion trains, which could be obtained in the winter when they had ceased running. Under these circumstances, he was in favour of the inquiry, but was opposed to its adoption during the present Session.

MR. HENRY BERKELEY

said, he thought the hon. Member for Finsbury entertained a wrong estimate of the character of the House of Commons when he stated that fifteen gentlemen could not be obtained to inquire into a matter so important as the present during the prevalence of the dog-days. He believed the Committee could make a short Report, and the grievance would be alleviated.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed— To inquire into the Act of last Session, for further regulating the Sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day.