Lords Sitting of 15 August 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Brought in; by Lord KENYON, for the better encouragement of Agricultural Labourers. By Lord TENTERDEN, to enable Courts of Law to give relief against adverse claims made upon persons having no interest in the subject of such claims; for settling Controversies by Arbitration. Read a second time; Militia Pay. Read a third time; Church Building Acts Amendment.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Lord WYNFORD, a list of all persons now in execution for Debt, in the King's Bench, Fleet, and Whitecross Street Prisons, with the names, time of imprisonment, and amount of Debts of each, and whether they had applied for relief under the Insolvent Act.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Inhabitant Householders and Licensed Beer Venders of Gloucester, two Petitions, in favour of the Beer Bill. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the Licensed Victuallers of Maidstone, against it.

SALE OF BEER.
The Bishop of Londonpresented a Petition from ninety-five Clergymen, of the county of Stafford, praying for an alteration in the Sale of Beer Act. The petitioners stated, that the alteration proposed to be made in the Beer Act, by the bill brought into their Lordships' House by the noble Secretary for the Home Department, would be inadequate to the purpose. They also stated, that the Sale of Beer Act had entirely failed in procuring for the poor better and cheaper beer. The right reverend Prelate added to this, that he had received a letter from the churchwardens of a parish in Staffordshire, stating that a public meeting had been held in the parish, where
2
certain Resolutions had been passed, setting forth the alterations that must be made in order to place the matter on a proper footing. It was considered, that the price of the licenses should be increased; that the licenses should be granted only to such persons as should procure unexceptionable testimonials to their respectability and good characters; that none of the bear should be allowed to be consumed on the premises; that the beer-houses should be closed on Sundays, except during such time as was absolutely requisite for supplying poor families with beer; and also (a very material provision), that no skittle-playing should be allowed on the premises where the beer was sold. The letter added, that a great increase had taken place in the profanation of the Sabbath in the place to which it referred, in consequence of the Beer Act.
The Petition to lie on the Table.

LAY IMPROPRIATORS' TITHES COMPOSITION BILL.
Lord Wynfordbrought in a Bill to provide for a Composition for Tithes due to Lay Impropriators, which he considered as a proper, if not necessary, appendage to the bill brought in by the most reverend Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), for providing for Compositions of Tithes due to the Church. His Lordship stated, that, by a statute of Edward 3rd, it had been provided, that

3
where lands were naturally so sterile as to yield no tithes, and where such lands should be improved, so as to yield a tithe-able produce, they should not be liable to the payment of tithes till the expiration of seven years from the time of their being so improved. The construction put by the Courts on this Statute had not given all the advantages to the cultivator which the Legislature intended, and, therefore, he had introduced clauses into the Bill, by which lands, brought in from the sea, or otherwise, so completely sterile as to yield no titheable produce, should not be liable to pay tithes in consequence of their improvement; that lands producing some titheable produce should, when improved by irrigation or otherwise, be liable to pay no more tithes than they had paid in their unimproved state; and also, that lands to be cultivated by spade cultivation, under a bill brought in by a noble Duke (Richmond), should not, in consequence of that mode of cultivation, be liable to pay more tithes than they did before. This last provision he considered as of great importance; for he was convinced, from what he had himself observed, that there was no better mode of encouraging industry, sobriety, and other virtues, among the poor, than by giving them small parcels of ground to cultivate for their own benefit.
Lord Teynhamthanked the noble and learned Lord for the introduction of this Bill, and suggested, that it would be advantageous to introduce into the Bill some provision relative to tithes payable on the cultivation of hops.
Lord Wynfordobserved, that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the cultivation of hops, to enable him to introduce any special provision on that subject, but that, if the noble Lord himself would propose a clause applicable to the cultivation of hops, it would meet with all proper attention.
Bill read a first time.

BEER ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the second reading of the Bill which he had brought in for the amendment of the Sale of Beer Act. In doing so, he wished to make their Lordships acquainted with some amendments he proposed to introduce into it. In the first place, with regard to the transfer of licenses, he was anxious to withdraw that clause altogether. One
4
great object of the Bill was, to strengthen the power of the constables in regard to the visiting of these houses. The constables had no power to enter these premises at present, except under the warrant of a Magistrate; but it was provided in this Bill, that the constables should have the power of entering these houses at any time when there should be riots in them, or when they should have company in them at prohibited hours, without any warrant from a Magistrate.
The Duke of Wellingtonthrew it out, as a matter for consideration whether it would not be proper that the hours for these houses to be open ought to be restricted to the usual hours of labour, and that none of them should be allowed to be open beyond four o'clock in the winter time, and six o'clock in the summer time. His object in this was, to prevent tippling in these beer-houses after the hours of work. He feared these houses had a bad effect on the morals of the people, by encouraging tippling at an unseasonable time.
The Lord Chancellorwould give no opinion at that moment as to the propriety of a clause to the effect mentioned by the noble Duke, who had himself only suggested the matter for consideration. Whether the houses should be shut at four o'clock in the evening in winter, and at six o'clock in summer, might be a subject for consideration. He admitted the necessity of some regulation to insure early hours, but it would be necessary to consider whether any such provision could be introduced consistently with the Sale of Beer Act, commonly called Mr. Goulburn's Act, which went to establish competition and destroy monopoly. The great object was, to prevent the abusing the liberty and the advantages obtained by the Beer Act, without at all touching the principle. To increase the price of the licenses very much would be in effect to repeal the Act; and it was questionable whether to require peremptorily that these houses should be shut at four in the winter, and six o'clock in the summer, as suggested by the noble Duke, would not materially trench on the principle of the Act. The great object was, to give to the public the full advantage of the Act, without allowing it to be converted into an instrument of mischief.
Lord Tenterdenagreed in the principle, that the hours during which these houses

5
were to remain open should be limited; but did not think that they ought to be peremptorily shut immediately after the hours of labour. He thought that some time should be allowed to labourers to refresh themselves at those houses after their work; and, therefore, instead of four o'clock in winter, and six in summer, as proposed by the noble Duke, he should say seven o'clock in winter, and eight or nine in summer.
Viscount Melbournethought it probable, that the evils which had been complained of, as resulting from this Bill, had been owing to the reduction in the price of beer; and the object was, to apply a remedy for these evils, without trenching on the principle of the Act. As to the shutting of houses of this description, provision had been made by law, that they should shut at ten o'clock, although the public-houses remained open after that time. Great complaints, indeed, had been made by the proprietors, that such houses had been directed to be shut at unnecessarily early hours, which deprived the public of that advantage by competition, which it was the professed object of the Bill to create.
Lord Tenterdenhoped, that the cause of the complaint would be increased, rather than diminished in that respect.
The Bishop of Londoncalled the attention of the noble Secretary to a point to which he had occasion to advert before the noble Secretary came into the House—he alluded to the profanation of the Sabbath, which was occasioned by the Beer Act as it stood. As an instance of its effect in this respect he might mention a well-authenticated fact:—A young man had come home to his father's house from one of these beer-houses at a late hour on Sunday morning, and his father, in consequence, immediately called at five or six of the houses, and found persons drinking and gambling in them at that hour. A great increase had taken place in the profanation of the Sabbath, in consequence of the Beer Act, and he thought, that, the time during which those houses might be open on Sundays should be limited to that which was absolutely necessary for supplying poor families with beer.
Lord Wynfordsaid, it had been provided by the Beer Act, that constables might be authorized by Magistrates to enter these houses if kept open after undue hours. It was proposed by the present Bill to
6
alter this, and to enact that the constable, in case of riots occurring in these houses, or their being kept open at improper hours, might enter without any magisterial authority; and he should propose, in addition to this, that any inhabitant of a place in which there should be any of these houses might call upon a constable to enter the houses on his representing to the constable that something improper was going on in them; and that the constable should be bound to enter on that requisition.
Viscount Melbournewas of opinion, that the purpose might be answered by enabling the constables to enter of their own authority if riots occurred in the houses, or if they were kept open after ten o'clock at night. As to Sundays, would not the power of taking away the license of the houses which were open at improper times be sufficient?
Lord Tenterden: That appears much doubted.
Viscount Melbournehad no objection to empower constables to enter these houses after ten o'clock in the evening, in the event of riot or disturbance, and without any warrant. He understood all such houses were shut during divine service, and he presumed the right reverend Prelate did not desire they should be closed the whole of Sundays.
The Bishop of Londonthought, that these beer-houses should not be allowed on the Sundays to remain an anomaly as compared with other shops. They ought not to be allowed to remain open during the whole day, but only for a certain time, and that merely for the purpose of selling out beer to families, without being allowed to sell beer to be consumed on the premises.
Bill read a second time.