The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA Y E V EN_IN G, J UNE 27, 1855,

from all parts of the country being universal that there was
no rule laid down for the guidance of the publicans, and
that they did not know what to do. He had received a letter,
from a Mr. Atkinson, detailing the operation of the bill in
Liverpool, in which the same absurdities occurred ; for
while a man going to a village about two miles from the town
was allowed to be a traveller, ho was not allowed to be one
if he went to a village one mile further on. As a further
illustration of the evil working of this bill, he would men-
tion a case which occurred on Sunday, April 23. On that
day the landlord of the Angel Inn, Sutton, had his brother
and sister from London to visithiin,and as the parties were
supping together, at half-past ten o'clock, two policemen
knocked at the door, and wore admitted. After looking
into the parlour and other public rooms, they walked iuto
the private apartment where the family were at supper,
arid seeing two decanters of wine on the table they de-
parted ; but, in the morning the master of the house was
taken before a magistrate, and fined 10 shillings and 15
shillings costs, although he offered to prove the lady and
gentleman were his sister and ' brother; the magisterial
answer to his offer being, " Then you must not have your
brother and sister to supper." He (Mr. Berkeley) be-
lieved
the licensed victuallers were a very respectable
body of men, and if any of them were not so that re-
flected chiefly upon the magistracy of this country. (Hear,
hear.) But whatever they were, he was not to be
told that any class of her Majesty's 'subjects was to be
treated in this way. Why, in Russia a man could not be
in a state of greater slavery. (Hear.) If the licensed vic-
tuallers were to be fined for giving a supper to their own
relations, what was the meaning of the term that an Dig-
lishman's house was his castle? (Hear.) He would now
call the attention of hon. gentlemen to those unlicensed
victuallers' houses, the clubs of this city. The hour was
past 11 o'clock, and the night was Sunday. Two gentle-
men were sitting at supper, one of whom was a magistrate.
They had been down to Richmond or Greenwich, and no-
body would preiurne to doubt that his worship was a tra-
veller. The parties, therefore, discussed their devilled
leg of a turkey, and washed it down with whisky punch,
and at 12 o'clock returned to their homes " comfortable.' ''
(Laughter.) The next morning the magistrate might go to
his police-court, and the first case brought forward might
be that ,of an innkeeper who had been informed against
for giving a beefsteak and a 'bottle of wino at half-past
10 o'clock to bis'own brother ; and this magistrate, with
the taste of the whisky scarcely off his lips, would hurl the
statute at the head of the unfortunate publican, and knock
him dbwn • fining him 11. ss. (Hoar, hear.) This tempted
him to exclaim "Handy dandy; which is the justice, and
which is the thief ?" (Laughter.) He presumed the pur-
pose for which this bill was framed was to check drunken-
ness on the Sabbath—(hear)—but he conscientiously be-
lieved it had not had that effect. They could not make a
drunkard sober by Act of Parliament, but he could tell the
house what it had done ; it had made people hypocrites.
They had created a hole-and-corner drunkenness through
the country which was perfectly appalling. (Hear, hear.)
People now got drunk in coffee-houses and in brothels,
where debauchery went hand in hand with drunkenness.
From a return which had been made of the cases of drunk-
enness occurring on Whitsunday, in 1851, in Birmingham,
Bristol, Bath, Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Not-
tingham, and'Sheffield, it appeared the total number of
cases amounted to 85 ' • but from a similar return made in
the present year, the total number was 118—showing an
increase of drunkenness since the passing of this act of 33
cases or nearly double that of 1854. The great fault of
the bill was that it let the rich completely alone—(hear)—
and while it was professedly introduced for the better ob-
servance of the Sabbath, it was in reality only for the bit-
ter observance of the Sabbath. (Hear.) The act must
have been brought forward by those who were lineally de-
scended from the respectable gentleman who hanged a cat
on Monday for killing a mouse on Sunday. (Laughter.)
He hoped the house would give him a chance of proving
some of the allegations be had made. He thought he had
laid before them some proof of the evil opera ions of the
act. All ho asked was, that there should be an inquiry,
and, if the' event was different from what ho supposed, he
would be the first to submit to it. (Hear.)
Mr. COBBETT seconded the motion. The hon. and
learned member referred to two cases of hardship under tie
act, and said he was sure the hon. member for North Lan-
cashire (Mr. W. Patten) would be the last man who would
wish to continue the act, unless it was satisfactorily proved
that the object was so superior to the mischief and cruelty
it occasioned that it ought not to be repealed. There had
been so many conflicting decisions upon the statute that lie
would ask the hon. member what was his notion of a tra-
veller,-and what distinction he drew between a traveller
and a bona fade traveller? (Hear.) Some magistrates had
decided that a bona fide traveller meant something more
than a traveller ; and others, that it meant a traveller tra-
velling. (Laughter.) This was a case in which the house
ought to institute an inquiry, for the reasons given by the
hon. member for Bristol.
Sir G. GREY said, that though he did not concur in all
the opinions expressed' by the hon. member for Bristol, he
would consent, on the part of the Government, to the in-
quiry he had proposed into the operation of the act'; but
he must say that a very incorrect notion would be ob-
tained from the speeches of both the mover and seconder
of the way in wheel' that act passed, and as to the motives
with which the hon. member for North Lancashirq pro-
posed, and the house adopted it, It ought to be borne in
mind that a strong feeling was expressed in the country
not in favour of this bill, but in-favour of the total closing
of public-houses on the Lord's-day. He was ready to
agree to the nomination of a fair committee,; but be put
it to the hon. member whether the inquiry could be bona
fide entered upon before the commencement of next session ?
Mr. BRADY was much pleased to hoar that the Go-
vernment intended to grant this inquiry. He thanked the
hon. gentleman for bringing forward the motion, and ho
gave it his best support.
Mr. W. PATTEN wished, as the author of the bill, to
make a few observatione in respect to the speech_ of the
hon. gentleman who moved the motion, and more espe-
cially to that part of it in which he said that the effect of
the act bad been to increase rather than diminish the
amount of drunkenness. He could assure the hon.* mem-
ber that if he could substantiate his case, he (Mr. W. Pat-
ten) should not only support him, but be grateful to him,
and would join him in obtaining the repeal of the act. But
that was a question which the committee would have to
decide. Ho was bound to say that he had carefully
watched the operation of the bill, and he did see defects in
it, more especially with regard to the question of bond
fide traVellers. The difficulty of what constituted a bored
fide traveller did not arise with him. He had intended to
define in the act itself what was meant .by that term, but
he was informed that he had better make the act more
conformable with those which preceded it ; and ho had ac-
cordingly drawn it not only according to the spirit, but
according to the very terms of previous acts. It had been
alleged, in opposition to the bill, that it was one brought
in by the aristocracy in opposition to the lower classes.
Never was a greater mistake committed in this country.
The circumstances were these : A committee of the house

was appointed to inquire into the subject, which sat for
two years, and before that committee the licensed vic-
tuallers were more especially represented, and their views
were considered. In consequence of the shoals of peti-
tions, signed by 430,000 persons, which were presented
during only ono half of the session, he was requested to
take up the matter, and bring in a bill further to limit the
hours within which intoxicatin-g drinks should be sold on
Sundays. Ho had never recei:ed one letter upon the subject
from the higher classes; they were received wholly from
mechanics, mechanic and literary institutions, and places
of that description—(hear, hear)—and from persons who
had devoted their time to the improvement of the moral
.and social condition of the working classes. He would' re-
peat, that there ~ever was such a mistaken idea as to sup-
pose that the measure had originated with the upper
classes. It might be a wrong line of legislation; but all
he said was, that it sprung from a body of men who had a
strong feeling on the subiect, such as the houso+was little
aware of. He had had a good deal to dO with the labouring
classes in connection with the present subject, and they
were as jealous as any of the interference of the rich.

Mr. H. BERKELEY explained that he did not say that
the bill was brought in or originated by the higher classes;
but it had the effect of making a difference between the
upper and lower classes.
Mr. W. 'PATTEN would only again repeat, that so far
from the aristocracy having taken any part, it had been
from the labouring classes alone that ho hail derived his
information. (Hear, hoar.) He wished to state that,
once for all, that all misunderstanding upon the subject
might be, avoided.

Sir. WILKINSON thought they had begun at the
wrong end. Instead of trying to stop drunkenness by
shutting the public-houses, they should set about to edu-
cate the people, and render them less susceptible to the in-
fluence of drink.

Sir J. WALSH believed that those who wore in favour
of legislative interference were actuated by the best and
most religious motives; but, at the same time, he could
not but think that they were very Much mistaken in the
course they were pursuing.
Mr. VILLIEB,S thought that the legislative inter-
ference had bad the most beneficial effects. As chairman
of the committee, which sat for two years, he had gone
into the inquiry with a predisposition against any legisla-
tive measures • but he must confess that his opinions were
changed by the evidence which was given ; and he would
tell those who were opposed to the present act, to look into
the evidence, and satisfy themselves upon the subject.
During his experience on the committee, of which he was
the chairman, he never heard evidence from any person in
authority against the shutting of public-houses at twelve
o'clock on Saturday night. On the contrary, -it was
the poor themselves who at that time prayed the Legisla-
ture to interfere even further in the matter. The opinion
of the public, he believed, had continued in the same di-
rection ever since. He did not object to the proposed in-
quiry, but trusted It vould be conducted in a fair spirit,
and give full satisfaction to all parties concerned. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY was glad to hear a committee was to be
granted, and sincerely trusted it would be a good one.
Sir J. SHELLEY hoped the whole matter would be
fairly and properly inquired into. He had little doubt the
measure was to the general satisfaction of the people; but
considering it passed hurriedly through the house, a 'com-
mittee of inquiry might adjust all matters of difficulty
which had arisen from that circumstance. He trusted
when he brought forward his motion for the opening, un-
der certain restrictions, of the Crystal Palace on Sunday,
that all those who, during the evening, had spoken in
favour of wholesome recreations on the Sabbath, would give
him their support. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. BALL said, so far as his, experience went, he
believed the act at present in operation had been attended
with the most beneficial results.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was glad it had boon decided to
have an inquiry, but was opposed to its adoption during
the present session. •
Tho motion was agreed to.
ELECTIVE FE,INCIIISE.

Major REED moved for leave to bring in a bill for con-
ferring the elective franchise upon persons (notbeing aliens)
who aro assessed to the income tax, but are not upon a regis-
ter of electors for any part of Great Britain and Ireland.
The lion. and gallant gentleman said he was fully aware of
the importance of the subject. Though his intention was to
extend the franchise, ho had no intention to degrade it; but
ho thought it only fair that those classes who furnished blood
and treasure for our armies should not bo totally wimpy)
Rented in that house. Neither could he see any reason
in allowing a member of that house to derive his qua-
lification from funded property, whilst we forbade a
man out of such property alone to vote at the elettion
of that member. He warned the house that there was
a strong feeling of distrust existing respecting them in
the minds of the, people of England, and this was a most
fitting opportunity to do an act of common justice-
Commercial travellers to the number of 30,000 formed
another class who would bo benefited by this bill. Then
there were the clerks of the Government offices, and of the
large private establishments. (Loud cries " Divide, di-
vide.") The hon. gentleman made haste to conclude by
asking leave to bring in his bill.
Lord PALMERSTON thought with the hon. gentleman
thatit was rather late in the session—(a laugh)—to bring
in a bill on a subject of this kind, involving at least one
question which had excited great variety of opinion in the
house. However, as be brought it merely for the purpose
of recording his opinion; and subinitting it far the consi-
deration of the public—(hear, and laughter)—and, as he
did not expect to carry it through during the present ses