Sitting of 10 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Timber Ships; Poor Clergy Maintenance; Loan Societies.

Petitions presented.
By Sir G. Strickland, Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. T. Duncombe, and others, from Leith, Dundee, Merthyr Dydvil, and various other places, for Mitigation of the Sentence passed on Feargus O'Connor. — By Sir F, Burdett, from Inhabitants of Wilts, for a
966
General Amnesty for Political Offences.—By Mr. A. White, from the Mayor and Magistrates of Sunderland, for increased powers to compel the Attendance of Witnesses.—By Mr. Godson, and Mr. Liddell, from the Vicar Choral of Lichfield, and Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.— By Sir J. Graham, from places in Durham, for Church Extension; and from Lincolnshire, against the Importation of Hill Coolies into the Mauritius.—By Mr. Pakington, from Southampton, against the Law for the Sale of Beer.—By Mr. Sergeant Jackson, from Meath, for Lord Stanley's Bill for Amending the Registration of Voters in Ireland.—By Mr. R. Curry, from Northampton, against Church Rates. — By Sir G. Strickland, from Long Preston, for a Total Abolition of Church Rates; and from Operatives in Mills, &c, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws. —By Lord Ingestrie, from inhabitants of Greenwood, that the Grammar Schools Bill might pass into a Law; from Wolverhampton, Sudbury, and various other places, against the Desecration of the Sabbath by the Canal Boatmen; and from Wolverhampton, against any further Grant to the College of Maynooth.— By the Attorney-general, from Edinburgh, to exclude that city from the Scotch Borough Bill.—By Mr. Hawes, from a Meeting in Fetter-lane, and from various places in Suffolk, against Church Extension.—By Mr. Loch, from Fishermen of Dundee, and various places in Caithness, and Ross-shire, that Foreign Vessels might not be allowed to Fish within three miles of the coast of Scotland.—By Sir C. D. Norreys, from Grocers of Mallow, to admit Free-labour Sugar on the payment of a reasonable Duty.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.
Mr. Mackinnonwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, whether or not the reduction in the duty on the wines of France, forming part of the arrangements in the pending negotiations for a commercial treaty with that country, was to be extended also to the wines of Portugal, Spain, Sicily, and the Rhenish provinces, as well as in a proportionate degree to those of our own colony, the Cape of Good Hope; whether, in the conclusion of a treaty with France, involving in public opinion, amongst other important considerations affecting our commercial interests, a loss to the revenue to an amount considerably exceeding half a million sterling, instead of the smaller sum indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opening his budget—whether, in the conclusion of such a treaty, the Government would act upon their own responsibility, or call upon Parliament for a preliminary decision on the policy of the measure?
Mr. Laboucheremust decline, in the present state of the negotiation, to give any information as to what proposals had been, made on the part of the British Government. At the same time he would say, that it would be extremely impolitic to give any one foreign country an advantage with regard to the importation of their wines into England, over other foreign

967
countries. No treaty into which they might enter with France would debar them from conceding the same advantage to other countries.

SEDUCTION.
Mr. Miles, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Seduction Bill, after adverting to the proceedings of the select committee, proceeded to enlarge upon the facilities to seduction, provided by the existing system, and the absolute necessity of supplying a remedy. The question, therefore, was simply this, was nothing to be done for these victims of profligate lust? Were they to see the sisters, wives, and daughters, of their poorer countrymen reduced to a melancholy state of misery and distress, without attempting to do anything to relieve it? Or were they to suffer the unprincipled views of the seducer to continue successful, and from the difficulty of carrying the present law into execution, and from the fear of reverting to all the evils of the old system, to be deterred from all further efforts of legislation upon this subject? Had there been, he would ask, no increase of bastardy since the passing of the New Poor-law? It was recorded by the New Poor-law Commissioners in their first annual report, that the illegitimate births were to the legitimate in 1830, as one to nineteen. He had an account in his hand of the legitimate and illegitimate births in the three years previous to the 31st of December, 1834, and in the three years subsequent to it. That account comprised the returns from ten counties in the south of England, and from the ten counties which were first divided into unions. In those counties had bastardy increased or diminished? It appeared, that in the three years immediately preceding that in which the Poor-law Amendment Act was passed, there were 8,579 illegitimate births, and in the last three years 9,048. These returns were from 3,835 parishes. It was true, that they were nearly all rural parishes; but had the result been different in the the great manufacturing districts? He had the authority of one of the most able and intelligent of the assistant Poor-law commissioners for stating, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in Lancashire bastardy had greatly increased since the passing of the New Poor-law. He had also another return, which, though partial, he thought necessary to bring
968
under the notice of the House—it was a return from the Wincanton district. He had inquired whether there had been any peculiar mortality in that district, and had been informed that there had not. Now, he found that in the Wincanton division for half a year there had been 500 births. In this number there were fifty-nine bastards. Of infants which had died under two years of age there were seventy-nine; of this number twenty-five were bastards. A return like that ought to induce the House to pause, if not to desist altogether from its present course. He had been in hopes of obtaining a similar return from every district in England. He had applied for it to the noble Secretary for the Home Department, who had been kind enough to promise that he would procure him that return, if the registrar-general were able to afford it. He had since been informed, that the information which he wanted could not be procured. If he had been able to obtain it he had no doubt, that the general return from the whole kingdom would have borne out the return he had just read from the Wincanton district. He thought, that the returns which he had just read to the House were sufficient proofs of the increase of bastardy since the New Poor-law came into operation. It was also notorious, that it was not till they were in the last stage of destitution, that the mothers of these bastards sought for refuge in the workhouse. He held in his hand a table containing, the numbers of paupers who had been relieved, with a division of them into classes, at Christmas, 1838, and at Christmas, 1839, respectively. From this table it appeared, that the increase in the number of illegitimate children admitted into the workhouse in the last of those years was one-fifth, and that the increase in admission of the mothers of bastards within the same time was 663, casting an increase of charge to that extent upon the different unions. Did not this prove, that there had been a great abuse either in the administration of the law or in the law itself affecting bastardy? It was impossible, he conceived, for any man to assert, that the law, as it existed at present, was either proper or perfect; and the only question then was, what law ought to be proposed in lieu of it? It was absurd to say, that a civil action would afford redress for the injury thus inflicted on the female part of the population. Unfortunately for England, to the

969
million there was no remedy for the seduction of a daughter, owing to the expense of procuring it, whilst to the rich such a remedy was open if they thought proper to apply for it. Ought such a state of law to continue? He thought not. What, then, was his remedy? The bill then before the House. That bill, though his production, emanated from much higher authority than his own. He had the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners themselves in its favour. In their first general report, they said,
"We participate in the feelings of detestation of the crime of seduction; but the principle, that poor-law administration should be the administration of relief alone, cannot be departed from by the introduction of anything having a view to punishment, without at the same time creating far greater evils than those which it is intended to repress. Neither can any existing authority for the dispensation of relief be safely considered as properly constituted as a judicatory for the award of private satisfaction for wrongs or for the infliction of punishment. It appears to be commonly overlooked in the complaints on this subject, that for the injury of seduction the courts of law afford a remedy; and to any objection which might be made that this remedy is too costly, or is otherwise out of the reach of the poor, we submit that the proper remedial course of legislation would be to render justice, dispensed by proper judicial functionaries, accessible to the poorest classes of the community."
In that opinion he most fully concurred, and hoped to carry it into effect by means of this bill. He had already alluded to the evidence given by Mr. Power on the increase of bastardy in the West Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire. The evidence given by that gentleman before the Poor-law Committee, was known to many hon. Members, and when he said, that it was upon that evidence that he had founded this bill, he thought that the House would not deem him guilty of intruding upon it a piece either of idle or theoretic legislation. He had divided the bill into two parts—one relating to seduction when effected under a breach of promise of marriage; the other to seduction when effected by other means. The remedy for the first offence was in the nature of a remedy for breach of contract—the remedy for the second was framed upon the loss of service. In both cases pregnancy must take place before the bill could come into operation. The next question was—" To what tribunal should the adjudication of these
970
offences be referred?" If the bill which was brought in last year for the establishment of county courts had passed into law, and had those courts been presided over, as was intended, by barristers of considerable experience, he should have had no hesitation in placing the civil remedy for this species of injury under the cognizance of those tribunals. But, as he had no hopes of such a measure being passed, he should find the tribunal he wanted in the special sessions of the magistracy. As there was publicity given to their proceedings, and as there was generally on such occasions a full attendance of magistrates, he should provide that there be eight special sessions in the year. Then arose the question of damages, which was a question of some difficulty. If you placed the amount of damages too high, you incurred a double danger—first, the chance of women allowing themselves to be seduced, in expectation of obtaining them; and next, the chance of the magistrates refusing to inflict them out of compassion to the offender. If you placed them too low, then came the danger of the bill proving wholly ineffective. He had therefore limited them to 30 l., which the magistrates might award to be paid at once, or spread over six instalments, the whole payable within eighteen months. It was necessary for him to state next, who the persons suing for these damages should be, and to whom when recovered, the damages should go. In those cases where the seduction was effected in consequence of a breach of promise of marriage, the woman would be entitled to sue; but in those cases where the seduction was effected by other means, the father and mother of the woman seduced, or where there was no father and no mother, the master and mistress in whose service she was, should be entitled to sue on her behalf. In the first class of cases, the penalty would go to the woman, and in the second to the parties suing in trust for the bastard. He meant his bill to apply, not to the vicious, but to the unfortunate. He also proposed to give the magistrate leave to judge in the first instance, whether he would hear the case or not. If he was inclined to hear it, then a summons to appear should be delivered to the man at least ten days before the hearing; and, at the hearing he should come forward with all the evidence he had to rebut the charge. He should also enact, that there

971
should be no judgment against the man on the unsupported evidence of the woman. He had now explained to the House the principle of his bill; and if he could only obtain their sanction to it, he would willingly leave the details of it in their hands. Since he had first introduced the bill, he had received so many accounts of the hardships inflicted under the present law that he could not think of wearying the House by reading them. Sorry was he to say it, but the fact was undeniable, that among farmers' sons and domestic servants, seduction was constantly taking place. The consequence was, that too often the woman had no other refuge but the workhouse, and, owing to the want of classification, which prevailed in those places, any woman who once entered it, must come out demoralized. After some other observations, which the noise in the House rendered inaudible, the hon. Member concluded by moving that the bill be then read a second time.
The Attorney-Generalrose to oppose the motion. The bill introduced a novel principle into our legislation, and that, too, a principle of great danger. He would not now enter into a contest with the hon. Member opposite, as to whether the seduction clauses of the Poor Law Amendment Act, had had a good or a bad effect: he would only say, that from all he had heard, he believed, they had had a very good effect, and that seduction was much less common than it had been previous to the passing of that act. He would also add, that he thought the proposed system would occasion a much greater amount of seduction than had been ever before known. He would now point out the details of the bill. For the first time in the legislation of this country, there was to be a compensation purely for the loss of chastity, and for the first time for a great many years, the want of chastity was to be made a crime. At one time fornication had been a crime by law, but that had been found to be so inconvenient, that the law was rarely enforced. The bill of the hon. Gentleman said, that any woman who should be seduced by promise of marriage, might go before a justice of peace, who was to summon the supposed seducer before the petty sessions, in order that they might hear the complaint. What a wide door this would open to vice and fraud! In the first place, women would be much less
972
careful of their chastity than they would be if they did not trust to such a resource as the bill would give them. Then a woman, however false her story might be, would go before the petty sessions, where a penalty of 30 l. might be awarded to her. The hon. Member, had, however, introduced a proviso, which would nullify the remedy he wished to give in cases of real injustice. Evidence must be brought that the woman had been seduced under promise of marriage; therefore the bill would not apply in any case except where a man had made a promise of marriage coram testibus, and afterwards seduced the woman. If the 30 l. were not paid, the man was to go to gaol for a period of six months. He (the Attorney-General) was very much adverse to the establishment of such a law, and he should therefore move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Benettthought something should be done to repress indiscriminate seduction; and that some protection should be afforded to the female which the present law did not give her. Under the state of the law which until lately existed, the man who seduced a woman was bound to support her child if she had one, and this led to some degree of circumspection on his part. Under the present law there was no protection for the female sex; and he thought that some attempt should be made to remedy this evil. With regard to seductions under promise of marriage there might certainly be some difficulty in proving such a case. But in many instances it might be done. For instance, it very frequently happened that a man seduced a woman after having as a blind published the banns of marriage, and in such a case there could be no difficulty on the score of evidence. With respect to the bill now before the House, though he (Mr. Benett) did not approve of much of it in detail, he should mark his approval of its principles by voting for the second reading.
Mr. Slaneybelieved the new poor-law had operated as a great protection to females by removing those temptations which formerly existed for consenting to the improper addresses of men. He thought, however, that something should yet be done to give further protection to women seduced under promise of marriage, which was proposed to be done by this bill. He did not approve, however, of giving the

973
woman 30 l. damages for the loss of her chastity, which he feared would too often operate as a temptation to yield to seduction. He thought that it would be more proper that the money recovered against the man should be paid to the poor-rates, or some fund for the maintenance of the child.
Mr. Miles, in reply said, that all he wanted was that the House should approve of the principle upon which his bill was founded, and then, being well aware of the great difficulties by which the subject was surrounded, he should be very happy to resign it into the abler hands of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Villierssaid, that if the hon. Gentleman's bill had in view to render justice accessible to the poor, he would give it his ready assent; and he admitted in this case that it was an enormous evil that poor women should have no redress if they really had endured a wrong; but the hon. Gentleman had not by his bill solved the real difficulty in the case, which was a competent tribunal before whom they were to appear and obtain their remedy: he only had proposed by this bill to give fresh powers to the gentry who were the local magistrates, and which it would do in a material degree, and he thought in this case, where the sons, or the servants, or the dependants of the magistracy might be the parties whose cases they would have to decide, that the objections which did exist at present to the magistracy, namely, that their judgments might be biassed by their local interests or their local prejudices, would apply in a striking degree in this case. Let the hon. Gentleman say that he would support a good system of local courts to provide for a competent administration of justice throughout the country, and he would have his ready concurrence, and he believed that of every person on his side of the House, in any plan for affording any redress which the poor might seek or demand. But he, for one, not having confidence in the country justices, as they were at present appointed, could not consent to extend their powers in this respect.
Mr. Freshfieldapproved of the principles of the bill, and would support the second reading, without, however, expressing any opinion upon its details.
Mr. Hawesopposed the bill, because he thought it would in fact legalize seduction on the part of the rich. Any man who
974
could pay 30 l., might under this bill seduce at pleasure, and the parents of the unfortunate girl would be excluded from their remedy in a court of law.
The House divided: Ayes 57; Noes 56; Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adare, Lord

Hope, hon. C.

Ashley, Lord

Houldsworth, T.

Baldwin, C. B.

Houstoun, G.

Baring, H. B.

Jackson, Sergeant

Barnard, E. G.

Kelburne, Viscount

Barrington, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Benett, J.

Lascelles, W. S.

Blackburn, I.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bowes, J.

Mackenzie, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Morris, D.

Burrell, Sir C.

Northland, Lord

Burroughes, H. N.

Palmer, G.

Cochrane, Sir T.

Parker, R. T.

Courtenay, P.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Duffield, T.

Polhill, F.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Pusey, P.

East, J. B.

Richards, R.

Eastnor, Lord

Round, C. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Sheppard, T.

Eliot, Lord

Slaney, R. A.

Farnham, E. B.

Somerset, rt.hnLordG.

Finch, F.

Sotherton, T. E.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Fremantle, Sir T.

Wilbraham, G.

Freshfield, J. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Wood, B.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J,

Worsley, Lord

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Harcourt, G. G.

Miles, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Liddell, hon. H. T

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Aglionby, Major

Lennox, Lord G.

Alston, R.

Lushington, C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Maule, hon. F.

Baring, hon. F.

Nicholl, J.

Baring, hon. W.

O'Ferrall, R.

Bewes, T.

Paget, F.

Bruges, W. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Bryan, G.

Pattison, J.

Buller, C.

Philips, M.

Busfield, W.

Ponsonby, C. F.

Byng, G. S.

Redington, T. N.

Callaghan, D.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Salwey, Col.

Clements, Viscount

Sanford, E. A.

Clive, E. B.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Corbally, M. E.

Smith, J. A.

Cresswell, C.

Smith, B.

Duncombe,T. D.

Stanley, hon. E.

Evans, W.

Strutt, E.

Gordon, R.

Tufnell, H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Vigors, N. A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H,

Hobhouse, T. B.

White, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Williams, W.

975

Wrightson, W.

TELLERS.

Wyse, T.

Hawes, C.

Young, J.

Villiers, C.

Bill read a second time.

SALE OF BEER BILL (NO. 2).
House in committee for the re-consideration of the report on the Sale of Beer Bill.
On the first clause being put, which provides that—
"Licences to retail beer shall not be granted to any but the real resident occupier, nor in respect of any house rated at less than 15 l. per annum within the bills of mortality, cities, towns and boroughs containing 10,000 inhabitants; nor less than 11 l. per annum in cities parishes, or places exceeding2,500 inhabitants; nor less than 8l. per annum in parishes or places situated elsewhere; nor unless poor rates and assessed taxes be previously paid,"
Lord G. Somersetsaid, it was with great regret that he found himself called upon to throw any impediment in the way of the progress of the bill of his hon. Friend; more particularly, as no man was more anxious than himself to put an end to the evils of beer-houses. The proposition of his hon. Friend was, that parties before they should be allowed to open beer-houses, should be in the occupation of houses worth a rental of 15 l. at least, if situated in London and Westminster, or in cities, towns, or boroughs containing 10,000 inhabitants, whilst in other cases the rental must be 11 l. in cities, parishes, or places exceeding 2,500 inhabitants, or 8l. elsewhere. He (Lord G, Somerset) was opposed to this graduated scale. He apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend was to ensure a certain degree of respectability in these beer-shop keepers in the different districts. Now, he did not see by what criterion the proposition of his hon. Friend could be carried into effect. The proposal was, that in towns having a population of, or exceeding, 10,000 souls, or being within one mile of a polling-place, of a place returning Members to Pailiament—that in all these cases persons occupying houses, paying or worth 15 l. a year, should alone be entitled to be licensed. Now, in the county which he (Lord G. Somerset) represented, there were two parishes only where the population exceeded 10,000. He thought the rental in both these places would be so great as almost entirely to exclude from the operation of the Beer Act any persons who might take out licences. This
976
regulation would include Pontypool, where, perhaps, the 15 l. would not be too high; but yet he found in the same district a widely-spread population, engaged in the coal and iron trade, where 8l. ought to apply; whilst, in Newport, 11 l. would be the medium. By a return which had been laid before the House, he found that, in the Hereford collection, there were 298 beer-houses under the value of 10 l. The greatest part of the beer-houses were under the lowest class. In fact, his hon. Friend would not effect the object which he had in view, namely, that of keeping beer-houses out of country districts, by the graduated scale which he proposed to adopt. If he looked to the case of the town of Usk, the principle would not apply. He certainly did not see his way through this matter, because if he were to propose any standard for his own county, other Gentlemen would quickly find that it would not apply to theirs.
Mr. Hamiltonthought that unless the noble Lord intended to oppose the bill altogether, it would be better to leave the first clause as it stood.
Mr. Pakingtonwas extremely sorry to find that the graduated scale did not meet with the approbation of his noble Friend. It appeared to him that the point to be considered was this, whether the House in dealing with the evils of the Beer Act could adopt a property qualification as a remedy or not. Seeing that the principle of a property qualification was distinctly laid down by the Chandas committee in 1834, and had since been recognized by the House both in the last and the present Session of Parliament, he thought he had a right to assume that the imposition of a qualification of that kind afforded the best means of dealing with the evil. Then the question arose as to whether he had adopted a fair graduated scale. He fully admitted the difficulty which arose upon that point, as regarded the value of property; he knew that what applied to one part of the kingdom would not apply to another part; but this was a difficulty inseparable from a property qualification, and applied with equal force to the qualification for the elective franchise as to the qualification for keeping a beer-house. All, therefore, that he could do was to endeavour to form such a scale as would apply with the greatest attainable fairness to all parts of the kingdom. From the information he had been enabled

977
to obtain upon the subject, he believed that the scale he proposed would have that effect; and for that reason he could not consent to any alteration of it. To meet the objection that it would not be fair to deal with vested interests, he had introduced a clause to provide that the bill should not apply to existing beer-houses, and to render its operation entirely prospective.
Mr. Warburtonsuggested that the bill should be allowed to go through committee pro formâ in order to afford the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Pakington) time to prepare the clauses he proposed to introduce. The House would then have the advantage of knowing what the provisions of the bill really were, and the opportunity of discussing it in a distinct and tangible form.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreminded the hon. Member for Bridport, that the course he recommended had already been acted upon; and that the bill now stood before the House in its amended shape. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to make some remarks upon the measure, but in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely audible. We understood him to state that, in his own opinion, he thought the best way of dealing with the subject would be to render the trade in beer as free as possible, and to place the beer-houses under the control of a strict police; but since it was proposed to deal with it by adopting a property qualification, he thought that the provisions of the bill now proposed were, perhaps, as just and fair, and as generally applicable to all parts of the country, as any that could be adopted.
Mr. Alstonagreed with the general principle of the bill, but he thought the qualification clause, as at present constituted, in particular with reference to the county of Hertford, would have an injurious effect on the beer interest. In justice to his constituents he would not attempt any compromise, and as he doubted whether the originator of the bill would be willing to satisfy him as far as regarded the qualification, he should at once move that the words be expunged.
Mr. Slaneysaid, the alteration in the beer-trade had produced anything rather than a beneficial result. He was, however, most anxious to have a fair qualification, because it would induce small and respectable shopkeepers to enter into
978
the beer-trade. The remedy was not a perfect remedy, but as far as it went he considered it was a good one.
Mr. Wakleywanted to know why the bill was to be allowed to pass, if the affair required, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, an augmented police. The law as it at present stood was as bad as it could be. The labourers were demoralized, and their wives and children were exposed to augmented destitution. The present remedy, though well meant, would not be effectual; and, as the evil was so very great, would it not be better to wait for another year, until such a measure was framed as would meet the evil effectually? What was wanted was a system of police. So said the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but what was wanted most was general education. Seeing, therefore, that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted the efficiency of the present measure, he should, for the reasons he had alleged, support the amendment.
Captain Pechellhad one objection to the measure, and that was, because the last census was to be the basis of the bill; but as another census was in contemplation, he hoped the hon. Member would pause until the bill for the new census was passed into law.
Mr. Aglionbythought a 10 l. qualification was too high, he should therefore propose to substitute the words "ten pounds" for "eleven pounds."
Mr. Alstonwithdrew his amendment.
On the question that "eleven pounds" stand part of the clause, the Cmmittee divided: Ayes 37; Noes 20: Majority 17.

List of the AYES.

Acland,T. D.

Hughes, W.B.

Adare, Viscount

Ingestre, Viscount

Baring, rt. hon. F.T.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Nicholl, J.

Benett, J.

Palmer, R.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, G.

Bramston, T. W.

Parker, R. T.

Busfield, W.

Philips, M.

Cresswell, C.

Plumtre, J. P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pusey, P.

Eastnor, Viscount

Richards, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Somerset, Lord G

Evans, W.

Sotheron, T. E.

Gladstone, W. E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Greg, R. H.

Wood, Col. T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Wood, B.

Harcourt, G. G.

TELLERS.

Heathcote, Sir W,

Pakington, J.S.

Hector, C. J.

Slaney, R.

979

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, Major

Strickland, Sir G.

Bewes, T.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Butler, hon. Col.

Thornely, T.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Greig, D.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse,T. B.

Warburton, H.

Howard, P. H.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Worsley, Lord

Morris, D.

Pechell, Captain

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Alston, R.

Stock, Dr.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mr. Alston Mr. Alston moved to substitute the word "five thousand" instead of "two thousand five hundred."
The Committee divided on the question that the words "two thousand five hundred" stand part of the clause: Ayes 40; Noes 22; Majority 18.
Mr. Alstonthen moved the omission of the words "one rating" and proposed the substitution of the words "for any house, premises, or land."
Mr. Pakingtonsaid he would not depart from the original clause, because the words "one rating" included land.
The committee divided on the question that the original words stand part of the clause—Ayes34; Noes22; Majority 12.
Mr. Alstonthen moved to substitute the words "five pounds" instead of "eight pounds," for the rent and annual value of the premises to be rated.
Mr. Goringopposed the amendment, and stated that the beer shops in the rural districts were places where many of the greatest crimes had been concocted, and that it was well know to every one that the House had been inundated with petitions, not only from the labourers, but also from their wives and families, praying that the beer-shops might be done away with.
Mr. Warburtonsaid that the bill would not put down the beer-shops. The only effect it would have would be that the brewers would advance money to persons wishing to establish beer-houses, and by this means raise the value of the property to 10 l., an effect quite the reverse of that which the hon. Gentleman opposite anticipated from the measure.
Mr. Aglionbysupported the amendment, and considered that a well-regulated beer-shop, under a proper police, was a great blessing to its locality. As to beer-shops being the places where it was said
980
so much crime was concocted, he for one did not think that the evidence taken before the committee established that assertion.
Lord Worsleysaid he had voted for the lower rate in the towns, but could not do so for the rural districts, where the beer-shops were the resort of the worst description of characters, where the village constable had no control, and where outrages were concocted which even the new police, where they had been established, were not sufficient to check.
On the question that the original vote stand part of the clause, the committee divided—Ayes43; Noes22; Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Palmer, R.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Palmer, G.

Barnard, E. G.

Parker, R. T.

Barrington, Viscount

Philips, M.

Benett, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Bruges, W. H.

Pusey, P.

Busfeild, W.

Richards, R.

Cresswell, C.

Rickford, W.

Duncombe, hn. W.

Round, C. G.

Eastnor, Viscount

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Egerton, W. T.

Slaney, R. A.

Evans, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Sotheron, T. E.

Greg, R. H.

Stewart, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Harcourt, G. G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

White, A.

Hector, C. J.

Wood, Col. T.

Houldsworth, T.

Wood, B.

Hughes, W. B.

Worsley, Lord

Irton, S.

TELLERS.

Kelly, F.

Pakington, J. S.

Lascelles, hon. W.

Goring, H. D.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, Major

Strickland, Sir G.

Bewes, T.

Strutt, E.

Burroughes, H.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Butler, hon. Col.

Thornley, T.

Greig, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, C. P.

Hobhouse, T. B,

Wakley, T.

Howard, P. H.

Warburton, H.

James, W.

Williams, W.

Pechell, Captain

Salwey, Colonel

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Alston, R.

Stock, Dr.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clause agreed to.
On clause 4, providing that persons to retail beer and cider shall be obliged to produce a certificate from the overseer to the effect that they are the real residents, and stating the amount at which

981
the houses are rated, and of the receipt for poor-rates and assessed taxes,
Mr. P. Howardobserved, that as this clause proposed an interference with domestic life which was not sanctioned in any part of Europe, he should divide the House against it. There was no man, he hoped, who had any generous feeling of regard for the poor who would not divide with him.
The committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill— Ayes 41; Noes 24: Majority 17.
Clause agreed to.—[Names nearly the same as the foregoing.]
On clause 12, requiring the production of certificates of good character before license be granted,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as he meant to divide on the principle of this clause, he thought it better to propose the omission of the few first words than to allow any discussion of the details. This appeared to him to be the most convenient course. He had strong objections to this clause, because he feared that there would be great difficulty in carrying it into operation in the country parishes. He thought it would be most unwise to place such a discretion, as being able to say no to an application for a licence to open a beer-house, in the hands of either landed proprietors, farmers, or owners of houses rated at 12 l. a-year; and all he would say was, that if such a power were to be vested in any parties, the magistrates were the persons to whom it should be given. His opinion, however, was, that no good would be attained by the certificate system, and that it would only lead to petty grievances and oppressions, which it was desirable by every possible means to avoid.
Mr. Darleythought that if rating at 10 l. instead of 12 l. were adopted, the objection to the clause would be diminished.
Mr. Pakingtondid not think that any sufficient reason had been stated to justify him in abandoning the clause.
Mr. Hawessaid, that as they had a property qualification, he did not see what they wanted with a moral qualification of this kind.
Mr. Benettwas satisfied that without some means of testing character, such as this clause proposed, a property qualification would be valueless. He should vote for the clause.
Mr. Goulburnsaid that, from experi-
982
ence, he was inclined to attach no importance to certificates of this kind; and therefore, if the House divided, he must vote with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. R. Alstonknew of at least one parish in Cambridgeshire in which there was but one occupier and one rated inhabitant.
Lord Granville Somersetconsidered the clause of no use whatever; and, as he had not the slightest dependence on the certificate, he would vote for the amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, in the small parishes in which there was barely a sufficient number of rated inhabitants, the clause would erect a secret tribunal to judge of men's characters, whilst in largo parishes the clause would be quite inoperative.
Lord Worsleycould not agree to a certificate being entirely useless. He thought that it would prevent a matt of bad character from obtaining a licence, though he doubted whether 12 l. was not too high an amount.
Mr. Slaneywould support the clause, because, though the bill had worked well in large places, yet there were many smaller places in which it was necessary to have some better check upon the keepers of those houses. But he thought it would be better to reduce the number of persons signing the certificate to four, and the rating to 10 l.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause—Ayes 41; Noes 43; Majority 2.

List of the AYES.

Arbuthnott, H.

Houston, G.

Attwood, M.

Hughes, W. B.

Barrington, Lord

Ingham, R.

Blackburne, I.

Lowther, Colonel

Bramston, T. W.

Marton, G.

Brughes, W. H. L.

Miles, W.

Burr, H.

Palmer, R.

Burroughes, H.

Palmer, G.

Cresswell, C.

Parker, R. T.

Darby, G.

Pusey, P.

Duffield, T.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, W.

Rickford, W.

Eastnor, Lord

Round, C. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Rushbrooke, R.

Goring, H. D.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Grimsditch, T.

Slaney, R. A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hector, C. J.

Vere, Sir C. B,

Hope, hon. C.

Winnington, H,

983

Wodehouse, E.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel T.

Benett, J.

Worsley, Lord

Pakington, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Aglionby, Major

Jervis, J.

Alston, R.

Lascelles, W. S.

Baring, F. T.

Marshall, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Marsland, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Morris, D.

Blake, W. J.

Muskett, G. A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Peel, Sir R.

Busfeild, W.

Philips, M.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Salwey, Colonel

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Somerset, Lord

Evans, G.

Stock, Dr.

Evans, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gisborne, T.

Strutt, E.

Goulburn, H.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Greg, R. H.

Thornely, T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wakley, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, B.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Howard, P. H.

Warburton, H.

Hutchins, E. J.

Hawes, B.

Words struck out and clause rejected.
On clause 15, which regulates the hours of opening and closing beer houses.
Mr. Pakingtonsaid, that the main principle of the clause went to make the hours for opening and closing the same all over the kingdom, instead of leaving that matter, as formerly, to the discretion of the magistates. He thought the hour of four o'clock for opening the houses was an unnecessarily early hour, and could be of no convenience to the poorer classes. He would, therefore, suggest that the hour of five o'clock should be named instead. With respect to the regulation for opening on Sundays, it was proposed that no house should be opened on Sundays between the hours of ten o'clock in the morning and one in the afternoon. By the existing law no house could be opened before one o'clock in the afternoon on Sundays, and he should therefore propose that the words ten o'clock should be omitted, and that the houses should not be permitted to open on Sundays before one o'clock, and that they should be closed between the hours of three o'clock and five o'clock in the evening.
Lord G. Somersetwould rather reject the clause altogether, 'and leave the law just as it stood now. He objected especially to the time for shutting being dependent on the population in each parish,
984
because adjoining parishes, situated under precisely similar circumstances, except as to population, might have very different hours fixed. He moved the omission of the first words of the clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved that the bill was founded on the recommendations of the committee of 1834, and when they adopted the restrictions recommended by that committee, they must recollect that the committee reported also in favour of equalising the hours for opening and shutting the beerhouses and public houses; if, therefore, they took one part of the recommendations of that committee, and placed restrictions on the sale of beer in beer-houses, they ought to take all parts of the report. There was, however, a difficulty in fixing hours for the closing of public houses against travellers, and the object of the bill was, without interfering with the licensed victuallers, to give as much benefit to the beer-houses as was intended by the committee, with the difference only that there was no necessity of providing for travellers. The House would act unfairly if they took only the restrictive parts of the report of the committee, and gave up the benefits proposed to be conferred on the beer-houses. With respect to the hour of opening, he did not object to five o'clock instead of four.
Mr. Cresswellsaid, the House had not been informed of any mischiefs arising from the present method of leaving the hours to be fixed by the magistrates. And he could not help thinking that the attempt to fix an uniformity of hours for all places would be productive of mischief.
Mr. Hawessaid, that in Surrey the beer-houses were shut at ten o'clock, whilst just over the other side of the water in Middlesex, the hour was eleven o'clock and this discrepancy had created great dissatisfaction. A distinction between the licensed victuallers and the beer-sellers, arising from the necessity of the former having their houses open at all times to travellers, did exist, and could not be prevented, but the hours for all beer-houses ought to be alike. He would also propose to leave out the words which required the houses to be shut up from three to five on Sundays, during the supposed afternoon service, seeing that those hours varied in different parishes, and frequently in the same parish. His proposal would be to keep all the houses shut till one

985
o'clock on Sundays, and not interfere afterwards.
Mr. Pakingtonfound that public-houses were placed under the restriction proposed by the clause, and he thought it best that the practice should be assimilated.
Sir R. Peelthought the distinction of districts drawn by the clause was insufficient and defective. The distinction was attempted to be drawn by the number of inhabitants in the parish, but it very frequently happened that a parish containing 2,000 persons was precisely similar in position to one in which there were 10,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted that the provision was defective, but he thought that this was not the only point in which the bill was defective. There was only a choice of difficulties, of which the least appeared to him to have been selected.
Mr. J. Jervisthought it better to define the hours of opening and closing; these houses by the precise terms of an Act of Parliament than to leave it open to magistrates of districts to fix different periods for that purpose.
The Committee divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill — Ayes 63; Noes 24: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby,hn.G. R.

Jervis, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S

Aglionby, Major

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Alston, R.

Marsland, H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Maule, hon. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Miles, W.

Barrington, Viscount

Morris, D.

Benett, John

Muskett, G. A.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, R.

Blake, W. J.

Palmer, G.

Burr, H.

Philips, M.

Busfeild, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Codrington, C. W.

Pusey, P.

Currie, R.

Rickford, W.

Duffield, T.

Round, C. G.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eastnor, Viscount

Rutherfurd, rt hn. A.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Gisborne, T.

Smith, B.

Greg, R. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Hawes, B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hector, C. J.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Howard, P. H.

Wakley, T. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Warburton,

Ingham, R,

White, A.

James, W.

Williams, W.

986

Winnington, H. J.

Wodehouse, E.

TELLERS.

Wood, B

Pakington, J. S.

Worsley, Lord

Gordon, R.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Marshall, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Marton, G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Milnes, R. M.

Darby, G

Nicholl, J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Parker, R. T.

Egerton, W. T.

Peel rt. hon. Sir R.

Goring, H. D.

Scarlett, hon. J, Y.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Strutt, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Thompson, Alderman

Hawkins, J. H.

Wood, Colonel T.

Heathcoat, Sir W.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hope, hon. C.

Somerset, Lord G.

Kelly, F.

Cresswell, C.

On the clause being again put.
Mr. Milessuggested that the magistrates at quarter sessions assembled should have the power confided to them of fixing the hour of closing beer-houses within the district over which they should preside.
Sir George Stricklandthought that if this suggestion were adopted, the plan would be open to all the objections which had been urged against the system before established, by which jurisdiction was given to magistrates at petty sessions. He saw no reason why eleven o'clock should not be adopted as the hour to be universally observed as that at which beer-houses should be closed.
Mr. J. Jervisthought that in London and Westminster the hours might be taken at twelve, and that elsewhere eleven o'clock should be fixed.
Sir R. Peelthought great practical inconvenience would arise if the population of parishes were made the criterion by which the hour of closing was decided upon. He thought that the distinction as regarded the hour of closing should be between the towns and the rural districts. The decision as to which should be considered a rural district, and which a town district, might safely be left to the magistrates, with a power to the Secretary of State to review their decision.
Mr. Elliotthought one uniform hour of closing would be preferable to the plan of closing in the towns at one hour, and the rural districts at another.
Mr. Grimsditchmoved an amendment to leave out the words applying the clause to places of which the population exceeded ten thousand.
The committee divided on the question

987
that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.—Ayes 65; Noes 7: Majority58.

List of the NOES

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Kelly, F.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

TELLERS.

Cresswell, C.

Grimsditch, T.

Hodgson, R.

Parker, R.

[We give only the Noes].
On clause 18,
Mr. Wakley moved an amendment to enable the widows of beer-house keepers to continue the business during widowhood.
The committee divided. Ayes 43; Noes 24: Majority19.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kelly, F.

Aglionby, Major

Marshall, W.

Alston, R.

Marsland, H.

Blake, W. J.

Miles, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Morris, D.

Busfeild, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Nicholl, J.

Currie, R.

Philips, M.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Rice, E. R.

Evans, W.

Rushout, G.

Gisborne, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Greg, R. H.

Strutt, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hamilton, C. J. P.

Thornely, T.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Winnington, Sir T, E.

Howard, P. H.

Winnington, H. J.

Ingham, R.

Wood, B.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Jervis, J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Jones, J.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hughes, W.

Barrington, Viscount

Palmer, R.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, G.

Bruges, W. H.

Parker, R. T.

Burr, H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cresswell, C.

Pusey, P.

Darby, G.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Eastnor, Viscount

Sotheron, T. E.

Egerton, W. T.

Tufnell, H.

Greene, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Pakington, J. S.

Holmes, W,

Lascelles, hon. W. S.M.

Mr. Cresswell Mr. Cresswell moved the addition of a clause to prohibit the consumption of beer on the premises. There was abundance of evidence to show that the beer-shops
988
were sinks of crime and debauchery. Mr. Thomas gave testimony, also, that they greatly encouraged illicit distillation, whereby in the town of Manchester alone there was a loss to the revenue of 50,000 l. a-year. He did not propose by this clause to interfere with vested interests, but to restrict its operations perspectively.
Mr. Pakingtonopposed the clause, as he doubted whether, even if it were passed, it would effect the good the hon. and learned Gentleman expected from it. There was no doubt it would be open to a great deal of evasion.
Clause brought up and read a first time.
The committee divided on the question that the clause be read a second time —Ayes 18; Noes 29: Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Barrington, Viscount

Lascelles, hon W. S.

Blackburne, I.

Nicholl, J.

Burr, H.

Palmer, G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Parker, R. T.

Egerton, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Greene, T.

Sotheron, T. E.

Grimsditch, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hodgson R.

Holmes, W.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Cresswell, C.

Jones, J.

Kelly, F.

House resumed.
Committee to sit again.