Lords Sitting of 29 August 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; Canadian Revenue. Read a third time; Burning of Lands (Ireland.)
Petitions presented. By Lord HOLLAND, from Evans Jones, praying, that the effects of the Beer Act might be inquired into before any material alterations were made in it; and from William Ben bow, to the same effect. By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from William Washington, of Middlesex, to the same effect. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from
740
certain parochial Clergy of the diocese of Exeter, that the Beer Act might be so modified as to afford as little temptation as possible to vice and immorality.

FRENCH TROOPS IN BELGIUM.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry rose to move, that there be laid on the Table an account of the expenses of erecting the fortresses on the frontiers of Belgium and Holland, and of the proportions in which the expense was borne by the Powers who contributed, In making this Motion, he wished to take the opportunity of putting some questions to the noble Earl opposite, on the subject of withdrawing the French troops from Belgium. The noble Earl had stated, the other night, that the French Commander in chief, Marshal Gerard, had received positive orders to withdraw the French troops from Belgium, as soon as the Dutch troops should be withdrawn within the limits of their own frontiers; and the noble Earl added, that he had no doubt, but that these orders would be executed, and that the French government would honourably perform its engagements. But he had since understood, that the noble Earl had added, in an under tone, which he did not distinctly hear himself, that some portion of the French troops might remain in the Belgian territory. In consequence of an intimation conveyed to him, that the noble Earl had added something to that effect, he had, after the adjournment of the House, applied to a noble Baron opposite, and inquired, in what sense he was to understand what the noble Earl had said, and what was the interpretation which the noble Baron put on the words of the noble Earl? By that noble Baron he was informed, that positive orders had been given to withdraw the French troops from Belgium; and he had been the more confirmed in the belief that such was the statement of the noble Earl, from a similar statement having been made by a noble Lord in the other House, viz. that the whole of the French troops were to be withdrawn from Belgium. With what amazement, then, did he afterwards learn, that Prince Leopold (for he could not be considered as king of Belgium, since he had not been as yet acknowledged by Russia, Prussia, and Austria) had requested, that a guard of ten or twelve thousand of the French troops should continue to occupy Belgium, after the Dutch troops had withdrawn. He understood, that Prince Leopold had requested, that a considerable proportion of the infantry of

741
the French army, besides two brigades of cavalry, and eight batteries of cannon, should still remain in possession of the country. The noble Earl had spoken, on a former occasion, of what this country had a right to expect; and he would now ask the noble Earl, whether this was what the country had a right to expect, after the engagements said to have been come under by the French government, and the assurances given by the noble Earl, that these engagements would be fairly and honourably performed? For what purpose, or with what object, could these troops be retained in Belgium? Prince Leopold had not as yet been acknowledged king of Belgium by Austria, Prussia, or Russia, and he had no right to demand these troops as a body guard. Could Prince Leopold not trust Les braves Belges? and if he could not, and we were to allow the French to remain on that pretence, it was quite clear, that the Ministers of this country had been bamboozled by the arrangement. It was perfect perfidy, if Prince Leopold had called on the troops of France alone to occupy Belgium in this manner. If any troops at all were required, the French government alone ought not to have been called upon to furnish them, but the matter ought to have been referred to the Conference, and our Ministers had not done their duty at the Conference, since they had not bound Prince Leopold down as to what he ought to do in an emergency of this kind, which, as it was likely to occur, ought to have been foreseen and provided for. It ought to have been referred to the Conference here, to consider whether, in such a case, the occupying troops should be Prussian, Russian, or Austrian, or some of our own troops; for, of all the Powers, France was the last that ought to have been allowed to furnish troops for this purpose. It was evidently a subterfuge, a pretence, on the part of the French, for the purpose of having the occupation of Belgium continued by their own troops. He repeated, that the matter ought to have been settled by the Conference here, and that some previous arrangement should have been made in case of the occurrence of this emergency. He had, on a late occasion, been complimented by the noble Baron opposite (Holland) for the great satisfaction which he had expressed at the assurance that the French troops were to be withdrawn; but then, when he expressed
742
that satisfaction, he understood, that all of them were to be withdrawn; whereas, as it now appeared, the result was totally different, since so large a body was still to be retained. He would refer the noble Baron to what had been the conduct of the Ministry of this country in 1793, during the progress of the then French Revolution, with which the noble Baron was particularly conversant—he alluded to the noble Baron, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or perhaps, he ought rather to say, the noble Deputy Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or Principal Secretary, for he understood, that it was the noble Baron who directed the proceedings of the noble Lord who ostensibly held that situation. If the noble Baron would please to refer back to a debate which took place in Paris at the period to which he had adverted (the debate as to the fate of Louis 16th), he would find, that a certain Monsieur Egalité, or some other person, had said, on that occasion: "Je vote pour la mort sans phrase." So, in this case, his language was: "Je vote pour la retraite sans phrase"—a real and substantial, and not a pretended retreat—"une retraite sans phrase et sans conditiont" and then it might be hoped, that it would be sans collision. The noble Baron had complimented him on the satisfaction which he had expressed, but then, that was under the impression, that the intended retreat was such as he had described, for that was the only species of retreat with which he would be satisfied. But one word as to the fortresses. In the Protocol on their Lordships' Table, it was provided, that the negociators for the four Powers—Russia, Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain—should meet and determine which of these fortresses were to be destroyed, and, it was to be presumed, without any interference on the part of the French government. Now, however, there was reason to fear, that the cloven foot of France had been thrust into the negotiations, or was to be thrust into them, He deprecated this kind of interference, as the worst, that could be exercised or suffered. The expense of erecting these fortresses had been borne by Holland and the Allied Powers, and France had nothing to do with it, and it was only on the supposition that there was to be no interference on the part of France with respect to the disposal of these fortresses, that he could hope or expect, that any good whatever

743
could result from the Conferences on this subject. He dwelt the more on this, as he understood, that France had required that six of the fortresses should be demolished, and that two of them should be the fortresses of Courtray and Phillipville; and there was reason to apprehend, that the French government was engaged with Prince Leopold and the Belgian government in some negociations isolés, having, for their object, the demolition of the whole of the fortresses. Complaints had sometimes been made of the inconvenience attending the line of conduct which he had lately pursued, in occasionally putting questions to Ministers on the subject of our Foreign Affairs. But, whatever might be said on that head, it was clear, that his labours, and the exertions of other noble Lords on that side of the House, had not been altogether useless, for he understood, that the noble Earl had thought proper to apply to the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) near him, for his opinion regarding these fortresses; and, if the noble Duke had given him his advice, and if that advice should be followed, that would satisfy him. But, in regard to the period of 1793, he would refer the noble Baron and the Ministers to a letter written by Lord Grenville, in answer to one sent him by the French Foreign Secretary, requesting some explanations. That letter was written in circumstances very similar to the present, and it would be well worth the while for Ministers to refer to it, as affording a good rule for the guidance of their own conduct at the present moment. It was an answer to a letter from M. Chauvelin, and was in these svords:—
"On soutient toujours la violation des traités et des droits de nos Alliés,quoiqu' on y propose une negotiation d'autant plus illusoire qu'elle est reculée. ainsi que 1'evacuation des Pays Bas par les armées Françoises, à l'epoque indeterminée, non seulement de la fin de la guerre, mais encore de la consolidation de ce que vous appellez la liberté des Belges.
"Je crois cependant devoir vous avertir en termes très positifs, en réponse à ce que vous meditez au sujet de nos preparatifs, que, dans les circonstances presentes, nous allons continuer à prendre toutes les mesures que nous jugerons à propos, à nous mettre en état de defendre la sureté, la tranquillité, et les droits de ce pays, à fin qu'à guarantir ceux de nos Alliás, et à mettre un frein aux vœux d'ambition et d'aggrandissement dangereux en tout tems Pour le reste de l'Europe, mais qui le sont
744
parce devenu bien d'avantage dans celui ce qu'elles sont soutenu par la propagation de principes destructeurs de tout ordre social."
Such was the letter of Lord Grenville, and he hoped the noble Earl would attend to it, and pursue a similar line of conduct. He hoped there would be no truckling in this case, as the favourite Journal of Ministers had expressed it—(he was sorry that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to whom he owed a few retorts, which he was desirous of paying, was not then in his place, though, from the manner in which the Woolsack was occupied by the noble Earl (Shaftesbury), it would gain nothing in dignity by the presence of the noble and learned Lord)—but he hoped there would be no truckling in this case—that there would be no yielding to aggressive movements, or French levelling and democratical principles: and that in the course of the Conferences respecting these fortresses, no directions would be taken from France, and no interference on the part of that Power permitted. The questions, then, which he wished to put to the noble Earl were—first, whether there had been any interference on the part of France in regard to the demolition of those fortresses?—and, secondly, whether, in consequence of a request from Prince Leopold, or for any other reason, a portion of the French troops was to continue to occupy the Belgian territory, in direct contradiction to the engagements of the French government, and to the assurances of the noble Earl, who pledged himself that these engagements would be fairly and honourably performed? The noble Marquis concluded, by moving for a "Return of the total sums contributed by Great Britain for the erection of fortifications in the Netherlands, or towards the defence and incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland, in fulfilment of the additional Articles of the Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands, dated 13th August, 1814; showing the total amount contributed by Great Britain, under each of the deputations contained in the first of those Articles."
Earl Grey, knowing how hopeless it was to dissuade the noble Earl (Londonderry*) from pursuing that inconvenient
*The noble Marquis sits in the House of Peers as Earl Vane, and, according to strict etiquette, Earl Grey generally gives him only his, parliamentary title.

745
and irregular, and, as it might be, dangerous course, which he had, of late, adopted, would not appeal to the noble Earl's discretion. But, after all the irregular and inconvenient proceedings of the noble Earl, and all the variety of irregular questions which the noble Earl had put on the subject of the negotiations relative to the affairs of Belgium and Holland, he would submit to the House, whether the noble Earl had been, on any one of these occasions, more irregular than he was at present? In the first place, the noble Earl had made this Motion without any of that courtesy which it was usual to evince on these occasions, and without the slightest notice that he intended to bring forward this Motion, or to put any questions on the subject of the demolition of the fortresses, or the withdrawing of the French troops. [The Marquis of Londonderry: I gave notice of the motion on Friday]. The noble Earl says, that he gave notice of the Motion on Friday; but, if the noble Earl did, he was certainly not aware of it, and there was no intimation of it whatever in the paper of Notices and Orders of the Day. He was totally unapprised of the intention of the noble Earl to bring the Motion forward on the present occasion. To the Motion itself, however, he had no objection. But he put it to the House, whether it was proper, upon the slightest of all grounds, to be putting questions respecting negotiations and proceedings of such vast consequence, that peace or war might depend on their determination—whether it was proper, merely on the ground of loose public rumours and statements in the newspapers, or of the vain imaginations of suspicious minds, to be thus continually putting questions on matters of such importance, and on which so much depended? It was not his intention to follow the noble Earl through the variety of topics on which he had touched, for he should be guilty of a breach of his duty as a Minister of the Crown if he did so. But, as to the questions put by the noble Earl, he had only to refer him to the answers which he had given to the same questions, in substance, when the noble Earl had put them on former occasions. The noble Earl had asked, when the French troops would retire from the Belgic territory? to which he had answered, that it was not for him to say when they
746
would retire, but had said, at the same time, that this country had a right to expect, that they would retire when the object for which they had entered Belgium should be attained—that object being the repulse of the Dutch troops from the Belgian territory. To this he added, that he relied on the honour of the French government for the due performance of their undertakings. More than this he could not say. He had stated the fact, that intelligence had reached his Majesty's Ministers, that the Marshal commanding the French troops had received orders to withdraw the troops from the Belgic territory. As to what had been doing or what had occurred since, he must decline at present saying anything whatever on that head. He did say, as the noble Earl had intimated, that it had been proposed that a part of the French troops should remain for a time. But whether the French were justified by then engagements in leaving any portion of their troops in the country after the Dutch had retired, or whether the Ministry of this country had done their duty by requiring proper engagements from the French on this head—or in insisting on the performance of those engagements when entered into, would be subjects hereafter to be considered, when their Lordships should have the whole circumstances of the case before them. He had already stated what it was which this country had a right to expect, and he had added, that he believed that the French government was disposed fairly, and honourably, and faithfully, to perform its engagements, and further he could not say. As to the negotiations on the subject of the fortresses, he must decline saying a single word on that subject at present. But he might advert to one little circumstance in reference to what the noble Earl had said respecting the fortresses: when the noble Earl spoke so confidently of the fortresses that were to be demolished, he declined mentioning the names of the whole of them; but he had pronounced the fortresses of Courtray and Phillipville to be two of them. Now it happened that at Courtray there was no fortress.
The Duke of Wellington The Duke of Wellington rose to confirm one part of the statement of the noble Earl; there was no fortress at Courtray. As to himself, he had been the officer employed, by his late Majesty to superintend

747
the erecting and maintaining of these fortresses on the part of this country, and he had continued in the discharge of that duty up to the present moment. It was, therefore, the duty of the noble Earl, as the head Minister of his present Majesty's Government, to apply to him, as the officer intrusted with the superintendance of these fortresses, and to call upon him for such information as he could give on the subject; and it was his (the Duke of Wellington's) duty to wait on the noble Earl and give all the information in his power. He had, accordingly, attended on the noble Earl, and had given all the information that he could. But it was not altogether for the sake of giving this explanation that he obtruded himself on the attention of the House at this time, He was anxious to say a few words on some other topics that had been touched upon—particularly that of the occupation of the Belgic territory by the French army. He was bound to believe, that the king of France intended to do his duty; he was bound to believe so, as he was not only upon terms of friendship, but, he might say, in alliance with our own Sovereign. But it had been said, that king Leopold had requested the king of France to leave a part of the French army in Belgium—he called him king Leopold because he was king of Belgium, and ought to be called so in that House, for he had been recognised as such by this country. But, if king Leopold had called upon the king of France to leave a part of the French army in Belgium, amounting to 10,000 or 12,000 men, that was no good ground for leaving them there, nor would the king of France be justified in complying with the request, He could not look on so large a portion of the French troops being left in possession of Belgium, in any other light than as the advanced guard of the French army; and he could not consider the withdrawing of the main body of the French troops from the Belgic territory, when so large a portion was left behind, as a fair performance of his engagements on the part of the king of France. He did not know, however, what was intended to be done on this head; but if a body of French troops should be left in Belgium, hewould say, that it was not consistent with the engagement of the king of France, nor with any principles of the Law of Nations, and he could consider it in no other light, than as an
748
attempt to place the Belgian sovereign under subjection to the crown of France. He could not say, whether the noble Earl and his colleagues had any thing to do with the choice made of Leopold to be sovereign of Belgium, but he believed, that he might say with confidence, that it had never been intended that he should, as sovereign of Belgium, be dependant on France. King Leopold was an elected sovereign—elected by the people of Belgium, and why should he require French troops, or any foreign troops, to remain within the limits of the Belgic territory? It could not be for the exclusion of the Dutch, for the Dutch troops had retired, and Belgium was secure against their return, by the intervention of the five Powers. What, then, could he want foreign troops for, except to protect him against any re-action on the part of his own subjects, or against a revolt of his own troops? There did not appear, at present, to be any ground for calling for the aid of foreign troops to protect him against either of these contingencies. But suppose king Leopold were in danger from either of the causes which he had mentioned, still the principle of non-interference opposed the employment of any foreign troops, and was it not interference to call in the aid of foreign troops, against his own revolted subjects or troops? He had stated, on a former occasion, that considering the disposition of the people of Belgium, it would be improper to compel them to place themselves again under the sway of the king of the Netherlands, or to force any member of the House of Orange back upon them, in opposition to their own inclinations. But one tiling was clear, that if force of arms were to be employed at all to impose a sovereign on the Belgians, that force ought to be exerted, not in favour of Leopold, but in favour of the king of the Netherlands, or some other branch of the House of Orange; but the system of interference was altogether wrong, although particular circumstances might justify occasional exceptions. For instance, there might be cases in which the occupation of a country by foreign troops might be justified, as in the case of France, in which an army of occupation had remained for some time after the last war. But there the occupation was by the armies of eight Powers, and not by the army of any one Power; and care was taken, that the Powers more im-

749
mediately bordering on France, should have no troops in that country. There were no Spanish troops, no Sardinian troops, and no Netherland troops in the army of occupation left in France. Then came the occupation of Naples by the Austrian troops, and afterwards of Spain by the French troops, against both of which this country had protested. He could not speak particularly as to the remonstrances made by this country against the occupation of Naples by the Austrians; but he might refer to the correspondence on the subject of the occupation of Spain by the French troops, and there it would be found, that this country had strongly remonstrated against it, and had intimated to the king of Spain, that if the occupation of the country by the French should be continued much longer, the British Ambassador would be withdrawn from Madrid. Then came the occupation of Portugal by our own troops in 1827, and it was well known, that that occupation ceased immediately when the necessity for it had ceased. He mentioned these things, in order to call to the recollection of the parties concerned, what had been the principles acted upon by this country and other Powers on recent occasions similar to the present. It might have been justifiable in the king of France to send French troops to Belgium, at the request of the Belgian sovereign, in order to repulse the Dutch from the country. But the moment the Dutch troops had retired, the French troops ought to remain in the country no longer.
Motion agreed to.

DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved the second reading of the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill. He was not aware that it was incumbent on him to say any thing on the subject of this Bill, except merely to state its provisions. It was an additional grant of an annuity of 10,000 l. to the Duchess of Kent, who, considering her situation, had, he must say, been but scantily provided for. Of this sum, 4,OOO l. a-year was for the Duchess herself, and 6,000 1. was to be allowed her for the maintenance and education of the Princess Victoria; and, as the annuity was made to depend on the lives of the parties, it was provided, that in case of the death of the Duchess while the Princess was alive, 4,000 l. of the annuity was to cease; and, in case the Princess should
750
die, leaving the Duchess alive, then 6,000 l. of the annuity was to cease. Comparing this with what had been done on former occasions, it could not be considered as any thing approaching to an extravagant allowance.—Read a second time.

SALE OF BEER. ACT.
The Bishop of Londonstated, that he had petitions to present on the subject of the Sale of Beer Act, and thought it imperative on him to take the opportunity of saying something in answer to certain calumnies which had been published against him and certain of the clergy and Magistrates of this country. They had been stigmatized as being always bent on exerting all their power and influence to abridge and restrict the innocent amusements of the people. With respect to himself, perhaps, it was not worth his while to make any answer to such a calumny. But as for the Magistrates and the clergy, no class of men was better acquainted with the habits of the poor, or more competent to judge what was good for them; and it was preposterous to say, that those wished to curtail the comforts of the poor, who had been the most active in promoting the institution of Saving Banks, and every thing by which the comforts of the poor could be really augmented. But they did wish to diminish the temptations which were thrown in the way of the poor to induce them to spend in drinking and gambling their scanty earnings, which it would be much more for their comfort to expend in the support of their families. The Magistrates and clergy did not wish to abridge the innocent amusements of the people; but they did wish to save them from temptations to vice and immorality. It had been said, that he himself was adverse to the system which enabled the poor to supply themselves with good and cheap beer. This was a calumny, for he had only proposed that the people should not be supplied at the beer-houses with gambling materials, and that the shops should be shut on the evenings of Sunday, and certain other days—all which was perfectly compatible with the system of supplying the poor with good and cheap beer. When the baker was compelled to shut his shop at one o'clock on Sunday, and the butcher at ten in the morning, he saw no reason why the keepers of these beer-houses should not be compelled to shut at seven in the evening,

751
As to the clergy, particularly, they were placed in rather a difficult situation in these cases. If they remained silent, they were represented as careless and remiss in the execution of their duty; and if they spoke out against practices which they honestly believed to have a tendency to produce vice and immorality, then they were represented as meddlers and hypocrites. He really did not know what the clergy had done to give any one a right to say, that they had said one thing when they meant another. It had been said of himself, that he was always ready to set himself against the vices of the poor, but suffered the vices of the rich to pass unheeded. That accusation was groundless as far as he was concerned; for he had exposed himself to ridicule and censure for his opposition to the vices of the great. But, from whatever quarter this abuse and calumny came, he would not be deterred either by ridicule or censure from speaking and acting, when he considered it a part of his professional duty to speak and act. The right rev. Prelate concluded by presenting a petition from the clergy of Salisbury, praying that the Beer Act might be so modified, as not to furnish temptations to vice and immorality. His Lordship also presented a petition from the London Association, for preventing the profanation of the Lord's Day, praying that the beer-shops might be shut at an early hour on Sunday.

BEER ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the consideration of the report of the Committee, in this Bill, said, that he had been desirous of introducing a clause in the Bill which would have the effect of obliging the beer-houses in country places to shut at an earlier hour than those in towns. But he found it impossible to frame the measure so as to apply to all circumstances; and the effect of such a clause as he alluded to would be, to create innumerable difficulties and controversies as to what places were in the country, and what places were in towns. The inconveniences produced by this in places which were in themselves neither cities, towns, nor boroughs—such as Lambeth, Camberwell, and other places adjoining the metropolis—would be very great; and he was therefore induced to abandon his intended Amendment, and to leave the Bill in that respect as it stood,
752
The Marquis of Salisbury begged to call the noble Viscount's (Melbourne) attention to certain clauses of the Bill, one of which went to repeal 1st William 4th, cap. 64, Sec. 4, relating to bonds to be entered into by licensed victuallers. That enactment, in his opinion, ought not to be repealed altogether. A great jealousy, no doubt, existed, as to the Magistrates being allowed to decide respecting the adequacy of the security tendered, but this formed no sufficient cause for the repeal to which he had alluded.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it would be too great an interference with the principle of the Bill, to allow Magistrates the power of deciding on the security tendered, because it would undoubtedly be said, that if the Magistrate had any objections to the person applying for the licence, all he would have to do to prevent his obtaining it, would be, to object to the sufficiency of his sureties. If the noble Marquis could state any other means by which the object he appeared to have in view could be accomplished, he should be very happy to pay every attention to his suggestions.
The Marquis of Salisbury, in reply, stated, that he proposed, on the third reading of the Bill, to submit a clause, to the effect, that the security tendered should be approved by the bench of Magistrates, and he should take the same opportunity to propose another amendment, imposing a penalty of 40 s. for keeping these houses open at improper hours.
The Lord Chancellorwished to make a few observations—and they should be very few—upon the most important and most difficult parts of the measure. He was deeply impressed with the importance of this subject, and when the measure was originally brought forward by the noble Duke, as well as when a right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London) recently made some observations upon it, he felt the necessity of imposing some additional restrictions to those which it was the object of that measure to enforce, for the purpose of checking the licentiousness which, from the evidence which they had before them, appeared to have arisen from the multiplication of the beer-houses. But he agreed with his noble friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that although the testimony which the House had before it was of a very respectable character, yet it was liable to mis-

753
takes, from the coincidence in the time at which the Beer Act was passed, and the reduction of the price of beer, they having both occurred together, one from the change in the licence system, and the other from the abolition of the duty on beer. When the Legislature granted an unlimited licence for opening houses for the sale of beer, and at the same time reduced the price of beer, they exposed themselves to this error, that these measures being alike in their date and operation, it became extremely difficult, if not wholly impossible, to say how much of the increased licentiousness arose from the addition to the number of houses under the new licence, and how much from the reduction of the price of beer. He felt it due, therefore, to the noble Duke lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, and to those who co-operated with him, to say, that their measure was not justly chargeable with having solely increased the desire to drink, or the quantity of liquor drunk. He thought, for his own part, that principal encouragement was held out by lowering the price of the article consumed. He would mention one point of view in which it was obvious that intemperance was more likely to be promoted by lowering the price of beer than by the multiplication of the beer-shops—namely, that people preferred going to a house where they might have cither spirits or beer, as suited their inclinations, or both, and where they might, as he had reason to believe they not unfrequently did, prepare themselves for one glass of gin, by drinking a considerable number of glasses of beer. He spoke practically on this subject, having had opportunities of ascertaining what he stated. He believed it to be very much the practice amongst certain portions of the lower orders of the people, to begin their indulgence with the comparatively innocent and heavier liquor, beer, and to finish with the stronger, and more ardent and more mischievously-exciting spirit Therefore, he said, if the price of beer had remained the same as it was before the passing of the measure, it would not have tended to increase the number of consumers of beer, or the quantity consumed; for he could see no reason, if there were five houses in a town under the old regulations, and that there was sufficient accommodation in them, and five new houses were established under the late bill—he did not see why, if the price
754
remained the same, the ten houses should double the number of drinkers, or make them drink double the quantity. It was, however, to be remarked—that under the new law the Magistrates had not, as under the old law, a discretionary power to fix, not only the number of the houses, but also the places where they should be opened, and they made it a rule to confine them to the towns and villages, and not to suffer them to be opened under the hedge-rows and by the road-side. Great evils certainly might arise from these beer-houses being opened and kept in solitary places, because in those places designs against the property of others were more easily concocted and matured, than in places open to general inspection and observation. But if, as he had said before, the multiplication of beer-houses did not tend to double the consumption of liquor, still less could it have that effect if the new houses were places where men could not obtain stimulating spirits as well as beer, if they were generally disposed to unite these indulgences. As to the abuses which were spoken of as being practised under this system, he could hardly conceive a more important subject than that they should be regulated, if it were possible, so as to guard against any thing of the kind; but the more he looked at the subject, the more he was convinced of the difficulties surrounding it. He would now come to the consideration relative to shutting up these houses on certain days—as Sunday, Good Friday, and Christmas-day, and at certain hours every day—as at nine in summer and seven o'clock in winter. This, at first sight, seemed to be an easy as well as a prudent regulation; and he at first felt strongly disposed to adopt such a regulation. But, on further consideration, he found the difficulties attending it so great in number, and so important in weight, as to alter his determination. If they made the new houses so perfectly different from the old—they were already essentially different, inasmuch as the new houses sold beer alone, while the old ones were at liberty to sell beer and gin—but if, in addition to this difference, they drew the still more important distinction, as to hours, what would be the necessary and inevitable consequence? The old houses would be open for the sale of gin, and wine and beer, and they would be open not only until seven o'clock in winter and nine o'clock in summer, as the new beer-houses,

755
but until twelve and one o'clock at night. They would be open for the sale of all liquors at all hours of the day and night. All men might resort thither to drink—the beer drinker, and the gin drinker—the man who was minded to go quietly home to his family after a moderate proportion of wholesome and necessary refreshment, and no less the mere tippler, the profligate, the licentious person, who thought nothing of his fireside, whose habits were alienated from his home, and for whom his wife and children had no attraction. The old houses, where gin was to be had, would be open, and the only houses not open would be the comparatively innocent beer-house. Already the public-houses were gifted for distributing gin as well as comparatively innocent beer; but the Legislature was now saying to the labourer—"You shan't drink beer at the beer-shop after a certain hour; but if you like to drink ale plus gin at the gin-shop plus the ale-house—'Patet atra janua Ditis—noctes atque dies'—you may go there at one o'clock in the morning; you may go on any day—on Sunday—on Christmas-day—Good Friday—on Saint Monday, or on Saintless Saturday." This was the state of the new law. His great object was, to observe the distinction between the gin-shop and the beer-shop. His desire was, to encourage the one, and to discourage the other. He would put down the consumption of ardent spirits by any means, and by all means. So deep was his impression, from his experience, and from the information conveyed in the evidence taken before the Police Committee in the other House of Parliament, as to the causes of crime in the metropolis; so deep was his impression that the use of gin and other ardent spirits was the great source of the cruel evils—the boundless and never-ending mischiefs, which prevailed in the haunts of the common people in this town and elsewhere—although he hoped not to so great an extent—that he professed his entire disposition, if he could see his way towards a total prohibition of the consumption of spirits in those houses—even if the interests of free trade, and of the unfettered industry of mankind, were to be flung overboard in order to lighten the vessel and guide her safely into the port where he wished to see her harboured—he professed his entire disposition, at the sacrifice of those interests of free trade
756
and unfettered industry, to put down the consumption of spirits, if he could do so effectually, by legislative enactments. But he knew it to be impossible. He knew that, by endeavouring to put down one crime, they would only create another, and he had, therefore, in despair given up the speculation—for he could call it no more—of preventing the use of gin. Without making invidious, and, in a free country, impracticable distinctions, he did not see how it could be put down. Well, then, what were they to do next? To discourage it as much as possible. He lamented the lowering of the duty on spirits, seeing that almost as much revenue was collected, although the duty was lowered about one-half. Making all proper allowance for the conversion of the contraband trade to a duty-paying trade, the result of his inquiry, and of his personal observation, was, that the increased consumption of ardent spirits must have been frightful since the diminution of the duty. Their Lordships ought, therefore, to take every possible means to discourage the use of spirits. And this brought him to the distinction between the gin-shops and the beer-shops. According to this principle, instead of raising distinctions between the old houses, which sold spirits and beer, and the new ones, which sold beer only, they ought rather to level all distinctions; and, instead of holding out a temptation to go to the old houses, they ought to tempt men to cleave to the new ones and abandon the old. By shutting up the beer-houses a man must drink gin, because he could not get beer after seven o'clock in winter and nine in summer. But it would not be only at those hours that the distinction would operate mischievously, for it was notorious that when a man got into the habit of frequenting a particular house—the Red Lion, for instance—he became familiar with it, and adhered to it—he would not go from the public-house to the beer-shop. He had one other objection to mention, which related to gambling. With respect to this matter, he was quite ready to share with the right rev. Prelate opposite, the charge of cant, which he treated with proper contempt, because, since ever he had come into public life, he had observed, that men who had no principle themselves cried out against the canting folks, as they termed those who were actuated by a desire to promote the

757
good of their fellow-creatures. These persons had, at least, the merit of candour. They did not pretend to principle themselves—they did not render the homage of hypocrisy, which Vice was said to pay to Virtue. The liberation of the Africans, the various questions relating to civil and religious liberty, had brought the charge of cant against those who advocated them. He, therefore, agreed with the right rev. Prelate in despising such attacks. He had always held in great abhorrence the vice of gambling. The mischiefs which it produced could hardly be over-rated by any law-maker; and he thought it as great a vice in those who were eminent in their rank and station as in the humblest peasant who practised it either in a licensed or unlicensed ale-house. He thought the right reverend Prelate opposite, the least of all liable to the imputation of having spared the vices of the rich, and denounced with severity those of the poor; for it so happened, that the right reverend Prelate had exposed himself to the resentment of persons in the upper ranks, by his inflexible condemnation of immorality, by preaching in season and out of season against it, and by censuring without distinction the vices of the rich and of the poor. Nevertheless he felt upon this lesser part of the case almost as much difficulty as upon the larger and more important part, for although the beer-houses were under their control, and though their Lordships had before them a Bill in which they might introduce a clause to prevent the playing at skittles in those houses, the consequence would be, that the people would go to play in the gin-shops or, as some called them, inns or ale-houses. His principle was, to put the new houses upon the same footing as the old ones, except with regard to the mode of licensing. He would put them equally under the control of the Magistrates and the police. But he would put it to their Lordships, so long as they had three or four gambling-houses in St. James's-street, as the right reverend Prelate had already said more than once elsewhere, and as he (the Lord Chancellor) now repeated in a less sacred place; as the right reverend Prelate had said from the Pulpit and in hid valuable writings, so long as there were gambling-houses in St. James's-street constantly open, he would not say to their Lordships, for he hoped that none of them were capable of passing the threshold of such a place, but to persons in the same
758
class and walk of life; while these places were open day and night, where men might ruin their wives and families, and fit themselves for nothing else but going to Botany Bay, or parting with life by violent means, so long their Lordships should be very careful how they prevented a poor man from having a game at skittles in a beerhouse. But he wanted to put down gambling, and with that view he would place all houses under the same regulations. Gambling was against the law, and he had seen prosecutions carried on, and bills litigated, and payment of them refused, because they were contracted in places where gambling was practised. He should be favourable to any measure which would prevent that vice in the higher as well as in the lower classes of society. As to the regulation of shutting the beer-houses on Christmas-day and other days, he would observe, that Christmas-day was not kept as a day of religion after the usual service was performed. There was that difference between those of the Established Church and the Dissenters. It was an established course at Lambeth Palace, in the time of a late most reverend Prelate, to finish the evening with a game at whist. He had it from the late Dr. Parr, that the Archbishop of Canterbury before the last, knew the regulations of the Church well, and never suffered a Christmas-day to pass without playing a game at whist, although he was not much attached to it. Another difficulty to which he would point the attention of their Lordships was this. How were they to shut up the beer-shops without shutting up the old public-houses at the same hours? And let it be recollected, that considerable inconvenience must arise from shutting up all such houses at seven o'clock in winter, and nine in summer, because all the houses to which their Lordships themselves went to change horses or to sleep, would necessarily be shut against them, after those hours, on their journeys of pleasure or business, as much as against the peasant or day-labourer. There was not an inn from London to York which must not be closed as inexorably as the commonest beer-shop. Yet so much they must do by their Bill, or they must encourage gin and discourage beer. It was not until he had drawn clause after clause, and proviso after proviso, and come to close quarters with the various considerations attached to the subject, that the difficulties struck him. He found himself

759
unable to get over them, and thought it his duty to state them to their Lordships. If they could overcome them he should be very glad.
Lord Wynfordsaid, the noble and learned Lord had fallen into some mistakes, in which he was sure the noble and learned Lord would be obliged to him for setting him right. In the first place, he concurred with the noble Secretary, (Viscount Melbourne), as to the expediency of not attempting the clause which he had himself originally recommended, and which would have appointed different hours for the closing of beer-shops in towns and in the country. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, he had to lament, that to put the new beer-shops and the old houses upon the same level would require a great number of additional clauses to the Bill before their Lordships. In the old public-houses, all the evils of which the noble and and learned Lord complained, were guarded against—first, by the discretionary power of the Magistrates, who were sure to select proper persons, and next by various provisions of the Statute-law. When the noble and learned Lord stated, that any man might enter a public-house after nine o'clock, or after twelve o'clock, he was mistaken, because, by the 9th George 4th, cap. 60, it was provided, that the Magistrates of each district should have the power of determining the hour at which all public-houses in that district should be closed.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that by saying twelve o'clock, he meant any hour later than that at which it was ordered the beer-shops should be closed.
Lord Wynford, in continuation. The Magistrates were to fix the time when the public-houses should close, and if persons were admitted after that time, such houses were considered as transgressing against the law under which they were licensed. So also gambling was guarded against, for the keeper of a public-house was liable to be proceeded against criminally if he permitted it, the penalty provided by a very old law having been re-enacted by a modern Statute; in that respect these beer-houses had the advantage, for there was no provision of the kind against them. He agreed with his noble friend as to the propriety of poor persons having opportunities of amusement. God forbid that he should wish to debar them of entertainment, knowing as he did, that such
760
restrictions would only drive them to employ their time in mischief. He saw no difference betwixt a man in a low condition of life playing at skittles, and a gentleman amusing himself with cricket. It would be tyranny and oppression to prevent it. But what he understood the right reverend Prelate to condemn was, playing for money, by which means men took the bread from their wives and families, in the indulgence of that disposition which was common to high and low, and which tempted persons to incur much loss for the sake of the chance of gain. He quite agreed with the right reverend Prelate in his wish to apply such penalties as would be the means of preventing gambling both in high and low life. As to the inconveniences in travelling which had been alluded to, his noble friend would find in every Statute an exception in favour of inns for travellers. There was nothing in the law to prevent inn-keepers of any description from receiving travellers. He thought it right to make these observations, considering, that if it went forth that innkeepers were not at liberty to receive travellers, or that there were no means for the prevention of gambling, it might have a prejudicial effect. His noble and learned friend could not have looked with his usual accuracy into the Acts of Parliament, and would not, he hoped, take it ill that he thus set him right. All the evils to which he alluded were guarded against in the regular public-houses. The most effectual security which the public could have, was, that the persons who kept the public-houses were persons of a superior condition, and those who could not obtain licenses for such houses resorted to keeping beer-shops. Would to God, as his noble friend said, that the people could be confined to drinking beer, and all the evils attendant upon the use of ardent spirits put an end to! But he feared that that was not possible. He was informed that there was a great deal of gin drank in beer-houses. Though they were not licensed to sell gin, still they contrived means to provide it.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the whole tendency of his arguments was against any distinction being made between the old and the new beer-houses.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that if the new beer-houses were placed on the same footing as public-houses, there would be nothing to complain, of.
The Earl of Harrowbysuggested the expediency of postponing the reception of the Report till another day, in order that the subject might be further considered.
Viscount Melbournewould not object to the postponement if any sufficient grounds could be shown for it. He must, however, observe, that the terms of the license in the case of the new beer-houses and of the public-houses, were similar in all essential particulars.
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, if there was a difference in the time of shutting up the beer-shop and the public-house, the natural consequence would be, that the inmates of the former would adjourn to the latter; therefore he maintained, both ought to be closed at the same hour.
The reception of the Report postponed.