PUBLIC-HOUSES, &c—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 22 June 1869)

§ MR. RYLANDS
, in rising to move a Resolution, said, that the question was not entirely disconnected with the subject which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), for the large expenditure to which he has directed attention was to a large extent rendered necessary by the drinking habits of the population. It was unnecessary for him to show that drunkenness produced a very large amount of the pauperism, crime, and 448 mortality of this country, for he took it for granted that hon. Members on both sides of the House were perfectly convinced of the evils arising from intoxication, and were anxious that measures should be adopted with the view of diminishing those evils. He did not for a moment wish to insinuate that hon. Members who might not be prepared to adopt the views he was about to submit were not desirous of doing what they could to diminish drunkenness, though they might conscientiously differ from the views which he entertained. He asked the House carefully to consider the subject of the connection of drunkenness with crime. Now, the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) stated the other night that, in his opinion, crime was decreasing. He (Mr. Rylands) was sorry to say that, as far as he was able to judge, there was no reason to think that crime was diminishing. He was afraid that careful examination of the Returns would prove that crime and drunkenness were increasing. It must be borne in mind that at the present time there were influences at work in favour of progress, moral, religious, and intellectual, very much greater in extent, and which, therefore, ought to be very much greater in effect, than at any previous period; they had the old agencies at work, but in a very much more effective fashion than formerly; they had the pulpit—and he believed that never were the pulpits of all denominations filled by a larger number of earnest men than they are at present; they had also a larger amount of educational agencies; they had far more schools that at any former period, and all the reports of educational societies showed that the education of the people had gone on increasing. He might say further, that they had an instrumentality, the effect of which could scarcely be over estimated—a cheap Press. Newspapers were disseminated by tens of thousands, at a low price. Now, if in the face of all these instrumentalities—schools, both Sunday and day schools, the pulpit, and cheap literature—they did not keep far a-head of crime and drunkenness, there must be something in our system which was wrong and deserving the attention of the House. He had no doubt that the great influence which thwarts all these agencies for good was the influence of drink. He knew it would be 449 said that they could not make men righteous by Act of Parliament, and he did not think they could; but he would tell them what they could do, they could at all events, by Act of Parliament, prevent men having facilities for evil, and could render the path of virtue more easy. Indeed, the whole of our legislation aimed at mitigating temptations to evil and giving facilities for virtue. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government laid down the axiom, in a speech which he delivered some time ago, that the Government should so legislate as to make it "easy to do right and difficult to do wrong," and that was the only reason why he ventured to bring this question before the House. He wished to induce the House to act so as to make it difficult to do wrong, and easy to do right. It might be said that the Legislature had no right to interfere with the liberty of the subject in this matter; but that it had the right to interfere to restrict these evils he might refer to the various Acts that had been passed during the last 400 years. It would be impossible to go through these various enactments, which afforded ample precedents for legislation at the present day; but he wished particularly to instance the 7 Edward VI., c. 5, which was entitled "an Acte to avoyde the great price and excesse of wynes." It provided that certain towns should only have a certain number of public-houses. London was allowed forty, York eight, Bristol six, and others four and three. In carrying out this Act Sir Nicholas Bacon, when Lord Chancellor, succeeded in getting 200 ale-houses closed in London, Southwark, and Lambeth, and the example was followed in other parts of Middlesex. Later on, the Lord Keeper Egerton, in his charge to the learned Judges when going upon circuit, in 1602, instructed them to ascertain for the Queen's information— How many ale-houses the justices of the peace had pulled down, so that the good justices might be rewarded and the evil removed. In those day, therefore, the fact was recognized that drunkenness would always be in proportion to the facilities which were afforded for drinking. He wished now to bring before the House the fact that in their recent legislation there were instances of the way in which the Legislature had dealt with the subject of Sunday closing. Up to 1848, the 450 public-houses, with the exception of Liverpool and London, and two or three other places, which were under local Acts, were open from Saturday night during the whole of Sunday morning up to Divine service, when they were closed for a couple of hours, and were open during the remaining portion of the day. The effect of it was found to be very objectionable, and in London it was found that the closing of public-houses during the whole morning was very beneficial. In consequence a general Act was passed, in 1848, entitled "an Act for regulating the Sale of Beer and other Liquors on the Lord's Day," and in the Preamble it was stated that— The provisions in force within the Metropolitan Police District, and in some other places in England, against the sale of Fermented and Distilled Liquors on the morning of the Lord's Day have been found to be attended with great benefits. It was accordingly applied to the country at large. In 1855 the House of Commons appointed a Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers). The Report of that Committee bore striking evidence to the beneficial effect of the Act of 1854, for, with one exception, the reports of the police superintendents spoke of a very marked improvement as the result of the closing of public-houses during the morning of Sunday and up to one o'clock. In consequence of the benefit resulting from partial Sunday closing, and the evidence collected by the Committee, they recommended that the hours of closing should be extended so as to close during the whole Sunday with the exception of four hours. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten) accordingly introduced a Bill to carry out that restriction. The Preamble of the Act recited that— Whereas the provisions in force against the sale of Fermented and Distilled Liquors on the morning of the Lord's Day have been found to be attended with great benefits, and it is important to extend such provisions. That Act was in operation for twelve months, and nothing could be more overwhelming than the testimony of the persons competent to form a practical opinion in favour of the beneficial working of the Act, and it led inevitably to the conclusion that an Act wholly closing these houses on the Lord's Day would be attended with the most salu- 451 tary effects on the moral condition of the community. The Society for Promoting the Due Observance of the Lord's Day forwarded circulars to the mayors and chief officers of police of the principal towns in England and Wales, asking them to give their opinon as to the effect of the Act. Eighty-seven replies were received; of these eighty-two spoke most favourably of its effects. Of these fifty-one said that the Act might be improved, and no fewer than forty suggested the propriety of wholly closing these houses. As regards the metropolis, the newspapers spoke with astonishment of the altered appearance of the police courts the moment the Act came into force. Of the Southwark Police Court, a newspaper, speaking of the morning of Monday, the 14th of August, said— This court had a very unusual appearance— such as had not been known before on a Monday within the memory of the oldest officer, owing chiefly to the new public-house law, which came into effect on Sunday. The usual average number of drunken charges taken into custody on Sunday amounted heretofore to between thirty to forty persons, and generally occupied the attention of the magistrate the chief part of Monday morning. Yesterday, however, there was only one drunken person charged, and only two trifling assaults. The same observations were made in reference to Bow Street and Marlborough Street. At the latter, instead of from sixty to 100 cases, there were only twenty-five. And it was to be observed that of these cases nearly all were brought to the police stations on Saturday night—there was scarcely one Sunday charge. Mr. Gilbert a Beckett, the police magistrate, bore testimony to the beneficial effect of the Act in a remarkable letter, in which he stated that on nineteen Mondays there had been only thirty-seven Sunday cases, or only two for each Sunday. The Rev. Mr. Clay, the chaplain to Preston Gaol, bore equally striking testimony, for he stated that comparing four months before the passing of the Act with four months after, there had been a decrease of 31 per cent on the whole, and more than 50 per cent on the Monday committals. Now, it might have been supposed that an Act, the good effects of which were reported in the papers, and acknowledged by the leading magistrates, would have been supported by public opinion and by the House; but the fact was that a very important class of people in the country were opposed to it. The 452 trade connected with the sale of these drinks was particularly affected by the Act, and began to agitate at once. In almost all the towns there was a general feeling in favour of the Act, except amongst a certain proportion of publicans, and the publicans created an agitation and put a pressure upon Members of this House. It happened that at that time there was a Sunday Trading Bill, which had been brought in by Lord Robert Grosvenor, and though it did not in any way affect the sale of beer, it created a very large amount of excitement amongst a certain class of the community in London. There were tumultuous assemblages in Hyde Park, and the opportunity was afforded and taken to make it appear that the riots were occasioned by the disapproval felt by the people at large for Wilson-Patten's Act. The riots had really nothing to do with the closing of public-houses on Sunday, as was proved by the public prints at the time, but simply had reference to Lord Robert Grosvenor's Bill; but the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Berkeley), who had great sympathy with the particular class of people to whom the Act was distasteful, came forward as their acknowledged advocate— for he did not disguise it—and proposed a modification of the Act. He moved for a Committee, and that Committee was appointed under circumstances of a very peculiar character. It was appointed entirely in the hon. Member's interest, and the large majority of its members were understood to be opposed to the Act of 1854, into which they were directed to inquire. They heard the evidence of a very small number of witnesses, and these with one exception exclusively from London, and refused to hear a very considerable number who had been brought up from the country at considerable expense in order to give evidence of the good working of the Act. They refused to listen to evidence which would have proved the great benefit of the Bill; and, upon small and very partial evidence, they hastily came to the conclusion that the Act ought to be repealed. Accordingly, the hon. Member brought in a Bill which recited that some slight inconvenience had been occasioned by the Act. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) entirely denied the alleged fact on which the Bill was based, and he believed it had inflicted a very serious in- 453 jury on the country by removing the benefits of the Act of 1854. He had shown the good results of the Act of 1854, in EnglandandWales—he believed he should carry the House still more decidedly with him when he appealed to the experience of Scotland; where a measure precisely such as that which he was now advocating had been in operation for a number of years. The working of it was challenged just as the Act of 1854 was, but instead of being referred to a small Committee manipulated in the way he had described, and presided over in a particular manner, it was referred to a Royal Commission, which went through Scotland to make inquiries. It examined between 700 and 800 witnesses, and the result was that they reported the operation of Forbes Mackenzie's Act to have been highly beneficial. The Commissioners in their Report stated— The improvement in large towns has been most remarkable; whereas, formerly, on Sunday mornings, numbers of persons in every stage of intoxication were seen issuing from the public-houses, to the great annoyance of the respectable portion of the population on their way to church, the streets are now quiet and orderly, and few cases of drunkenness are to be seen. The evidence of the police authorities prove that whilst there has been a considerable diminution in the number of cases of drunkenness and disorder since the passing of the Act, the change has been more marked on Sunday than on any other day of the week. Employers of labour, and workmen themselves, are unanimous in testifying to the great improvement that has taken place in the regularity of attendance at work on Monday morning, and many publicans examined before us express themselves as grateful for the existing law. He had thus adduced evidence to prove —first, that restrictions have been imposed by the authority of this House; and secondly, that they have had the effect of diminishing crime and drunkenness. Why, then, should there be any difficulty in imposing further restrictions, especially when there was, at all events, a considerable public opinion in favour of Sunday closing. A great majority of the householders had expressed themselves in favour of the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday, and Petitions had been presented to the House in very large numbers to the same effect. He might also refer to public meetings, chiefly consisting of the working classes, where resolutions had been carried in favour of Sunday closing. He asked the House, therefore, to adopt this Resolution with the view of urging on the 454 Government the desirableness in the important measure they were expected to bring forward early next Session on the licensing law, of including in it very considerable restrictions on the sale of liquors on Sunday. He believed that in treating that question, together with other modes of restriction, they would receive the general support of the House. This question is not one of party—hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House are as earnest as Members on this side in favour of restriction. He believed that, if the Government dealt with it next Session, they would pass a measure which would not be in the least beneficial of the great measures they have in hand. He believed it would be in the interest of the working classes; that it would augment the force of those important agencies for good which were at work throughout the country; and that all those agencies, whether moral, religious, or intellectual, would be advanced and benefited by the removal from their path of the difficulty arising from the temptations to drink; and if, as the result, they freed the working classes from those temptations, and enabled them to take advantage of the benefits offered them, to that extent we would succeed in placing the people in a position which would justify the confident hope that they would maintain the high position which this country had hitherto held.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that while the hon. Gentleman had been very copious in his references to the law of 1854, he had carefully avoided the year 1868. The Select Committee of last year was presided over by Sir James Fergusson, and a more careful, independent, and scrutinizing Chairman never sat upon any Committee; and, moreover, he was a Scotchman, and had his prejudices. The Committee had a large blue book before them, the Report of the Commission sent to Scotland, which painted druken-ness in the most vivid colours, whether it occurred in the open streets or in public-houses; but it was entirely overlooked when it occurred in a shebeen. Now the question entirely resolved itself 455 into one between the shebeen and the public-house. The great question was whether the restrictions on the liquor trade had in Scotland caused a diminution of drunkenness, and a great many witnesses gave evidence that it had not diminished—that instead of being public it was private—instead of being in the public-house it occurred in the she been. Then they had before them the Bill of the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley) and the measure of Lord Robert Grosvenor with regard to Sunday trading, which created the row in Hyde Park. Many of the tradesmen who were interfered with—the barbers said it was the publicans and the publicans said it was the barbers—made a noise and the consequence was that respectable people were insulted and the Act was repealed. Then various statistics had been got up by all the religious societies which were opposed to drunkenness. It must be borne in mind, however, that these societies were of a peculiar description. Some time ago an account of them appeared in The Times, showing that the persons who organized these societies made a very good thing of it, and that the greater part of the subscriptions went into the pockets of those who carried them on. ["No, no!"] Well, he was only repeating what he had read in The Times. He might mention that a host of these persons appeared daily before the Committee of 1868, and that they did not go there for nothing he was perfectly certain. These societies had got up and excited his hon. Friend, who had a great many members among his constituents. Now as to the Acts of Parliament, he thought he had gone through them all except the statute of Edward VI. But those were barbarous times and did not understand political economy. Even Henry VIII. did not understand it, because one of his statutes required tailors to make cloth coats and sell them at a particular price; and Edward VI. laid down the rule that nobody should drink unless he liked it. Well, people in those days drank because they liked it. The rule was that everybody might do as he pleased, provided he did not interfere with other people. That was an exceedingly good rule, but it was not the doctrine of my hon. Friend. But he might say this with regard to his hon. Priend—that he had seen him in the dining-room, and 456 he had seen him the better for drink. Well, if he could improve his condition in that way, why should not other people? His whole speech from beginning to end was not against drinking in particular but against drinking in general; and it was only in the latter part of it that he touched upon Sunday, and he touched it in the lightest way possible. But it must be obvious to everybody that a man was thirsty on Sunday as well as any other day, and therefore to deny any man the right to drink on Sunday simply because it was Sunday was one of the most preposterous propositions he ever heard of. His argument went to this, that nobody was to use spiritous liquors at all; but, if any day, why not on Sundays? If he wants to be enlightened on that point let him read the Report of the Committee of 1868. That Report went upon the honest straightforward principle, and stated this fact—that drunkenness had greatly diminished and was greatly diminishing, and that the sense of the country dictated that you should not unnecessarily interfere with the interests of the public at large. Now, when the hon. Gentleman went back to the reign of Edward VI., and to Lord Robert Grosvenor and the hon. Member for Bristol, and all those things, it seemed somewhat extraordinary that he should entirely have left out the Report of the Committee of 1868, which to his (Mr. Locke's) mind disposed of the question. He hoped that the Government would take no notice whatever of his Motion.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he could not admit that hon. Members on his side of the House were indifferent to the promotion of temperance. He had himself anxiously supported Mr. Porbes Mackenzie in canying the statute which bears the name of that hon. Gentleman; adhering to the same principle, he had supported the Act of 1854, and had opposed the repeal in 1855. As regarded the Porbes Mackenzie Act, so far as related to Scotland, he believed it had done much good. The discontent caused by the operation of the Act of 1854 had led the House to repeal it, and he was anxious not to see the House again placed in the position of passing an Act one year and of being compelled to repeal it the next. The hon. Member for Warrington had alluded to the agitation on this question. To show the character 457 of the agitation by those, who promoted the movement, he would refer to a resolution passed at Manchester in October, 1868. It was moved by Archbishop Manning, and was to the effect, that the Executive should be directed to promote conferences on the question in all the great centres of population. Some hon. Members might recollect the movement of Father Matthew, and what was the result? It led to an organization, which was established for the purpose of temperance, but was turned to political purposes. ["No, no!"] He said yes. ["No!"] The result was that the temperance movement, by being converted into political objects, had produced serious disorganization in Ireland. He was in favour of modification of the present law, but he was opposed to the extreme measure indicated by the Resolution before the House. If the House adopted extreme views he was afraid they might find themselves in a position similar to that of 1855.

MR. BRUCE
said, that considering the great interest on this subject which was manifested throughout the country, and the very extreme views with respect to it which undeniably received the support of a very large number of persons out-of-doors, nobody could complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had introduced the subject. At the same time he could not but think that the Resolution was somewhat unseasonable. He would not dwell upon what took place last Session, when a much more moderate measure than that which the hon. Gentleman recommends was referred to a Committee and condemned as unsuited to the wants of the time. He would rather refer to two discussions that have already taken place on this subject this Session, and to the distinct pledge which had been given on the part of the Government that the whole subject with respect to licensing and other points should be considered. When that was done, it would be the duty of the House to consider whether any further restrictions should be imposed on the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and he thought it would be better to abstain from entering at present into the question whether such restrictions were expedient. The subject fully deserved and would receive the consideration of the Government. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with that 458 assurance, and would not press his Motion to a division.

§ MR. HIBBERT
thought the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) were calculated to convey an erroneous impression with regard to the proceedings of the Committee of last year. He stated that the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) had not referred to the Report of that Committee, because it was so strongly against him that he was afraid to mention it. Now, though no doubt the Committee reported in that sense, they were not unanimous. He (Mr. Hibbert) himself brought forward a Motion in favour of further restriction on Sunday, though not to the extent proposed by the Bill of last year, but in favour of curtailing the hours public-houses should be open on Sunday, and that Motion was only lost by 1 vote. He might say, too, that the evidence before it, almost from all quarters of the country, was in favour of further restriction on Sunday. The proper way to meeting the question would, be to close all these places at an earlier hour on Sunday evening, and not to go in the face of that strong opinion which would be likely to be expressed if they attempted to close them the whole day. He entirely sympathized with the object the hon. Member had in view, but he hoped he would not press his Motion to a division.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that after the speech of the Home Secretary, he would withdraw his Motion.