The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-10 00:00:00

THE BEER BILL OF LAST SESSION.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.

The Chairman—Do you consider a person travelling
'or a distance out of London and returning thence by
,rain and demanding refreshment in London was a tra-
veller within that meaning ?
Mr. Norton—Most decidedly.
By the Chairman—Do you not consider the discre-
pancies in the decisions of magistrates on this point were
a great grievance to the public ?
Mr. Norton—l do think it is a very great grievance
indeed. I very much doubt whether we should have had
any disturbances like those occurring in Hyde Park had
it not been for the operation of this bill ; and the fact of
its having in the first instance taken the people so corn-
pletely by surprise.
By the Chairman—He thought the great mistake in
legislating for Sunday bad been that of confounding the
sober man with the drunken man. Whilst he was an
advocate for Sunday being observed as a day of rest,
yet he thought an opportunity ought to be afforded to
the poorer and industrious classes, whose only day it
was of enjoying some recreation.
By Mr. Villiers—He was an advocate for opening the
grounds of the Crystal Palace on Sunday, but not the
palace itself, because it would involve the employment
of so many persons on Sunday. He thought the ope-
ration of the act of 1848, which closed public-houses
from 12 o'clock on Saturday night until 1 o'clock and
Sunday only was far more beneficial in its opera-
tions towards the object in view than the last bill. At
the same time, he did not differ from the Government
so much for legislating en Sunday as with the hours
they had fixed upon for the regulation of the sale of
drink. He was, therefore, of opinion that the public-
houses should be closed between the hours of 3 and 5
on Sunday afternoon, in order to afford the publican an
opportunity of attending divine service.
The CHAIRMAN—Do you not think the present act
tends to excite a very strong feeling on the part of the
people against the upper classes.
Mr. Norton—Most certainly.
The Chairman—Do you not consider that if the publio
had been consulted on the subject of this bill before it
was passed that they would have expressed a most de.
cided opposition to it ?
Mr. Norton—l have no doubt the people would have
held up their hands unanimously against it.
Mr. Hard wick, the magistrate at Marlborough-street,
was next examined.
In reply to the Chairman, he stated that he was an
advocate for allowing public•houses to remain open from
one o'clock on Sunday until twelve at night, for the con-
venience of those who went out of doors for fresh air,
and also might when from home require refreshment.
With regard to the definition of the term bona fide tra-
veller, ho thought any person who went to such a dis.
tance from home, either for business or amusement, as
reasonably to need refreshment, was entitled to the be-
nefit of that designation.
Sir W. Jolliffe—Your opinion then is that public.
houses might be opened from one o'clock until twelve
at night on Sunday, without detriment to the public
morals.

Pro
PM

Mr. Hardwick—Certainly.
By Mr. Villiers—He did not think that drunkenness
had increased during the last few years in London. On
the contrary, he thought the evil had diminished ; at
all events it had by no means kept pace with the increase
ofthe population. Under the operation of the act of 1848,
he never heard a publican when charged with persons
being found in his house say in defence that they were
travellers. That term had only been made use of since
the new bill came into operation.
By Mr. Seholefiela—ln his opinion, the tendency of
the Beer Act was to create feelings unfavourable to the
upper classes on the part of the working classes, in con-
sequence of the facilities at the disposal of the former to
obtain refreshments of all kinds at any hour on Sunday,
By Mr. Gregson—He was very much in favour of
places of public recreation of an instructive or harmless
character being thrown open to the people on Sunday,
inasmuch as he was disposed to think that large /MM.
hers would be drawn to them from the public-houses.
By Mr. Villiers—He did not think that the opening of
the Crystal Palace on Sunday would shock the religious
feelings of the great mass of the community, though it
might have that effect on certain sections. At all events
a great distinction must be drawn between such harmless
places of resort, and such as were of a similar character
to the theatre,

Mr. Long, of Marylebone Police-office, was next called.
He said he had given the decision upon the first case
which arose under the new act, and had placed a more
extended construction upon the term bona fide traveller
than some of his brother magistrates had since done—
the case to which he referred being that of a
person who went from Holborn to Hampstead,
and obtained refreshment. lb objected to the
absurdity of the idea of a man engaged on busi-
ness only being held to be a traveller ; for, he thought,
if a person went to church in a morning, and probably
intended to attend divine worship in an afternoon, he
could rot more rational!y employ the afternoon than
by enjoying a stroll in the country, at which time he
(Mr. Long) was of opinion he ought to be permitted to
obtain refreshment.

By Mr. Villiers--In the absence of other public resorts
of a different character the public house offered great
temptations on Sunday—and he saw no objection what-
ever to the throwing open of places of public recreation,
such as scientific institutions, the parks and the like.

Mr. Scholefield—But at the same time whilst public-
houses offer the temptation you allude to to some people
do you not think that to others, to whom the day is one
of rest and recreation, and who require a public-house
for that purpose, the opening of these houses on Sunday
is a great boon ?
Mr. Long—Yes, I do.
By Mr. Villers—He had no doubt the real cause of
the dissatisfaction felt generally with regard to the
measure was the extension of the time during which
houses were to be closed on Sunday afternoon. Formerly,
under the old act they were closedfrom 3 until 5, during
the hours of divine service, but the extension of the
time until 6 seemed to be the grievance. Itvery addi-
tional restriction in this respect tended to produce dis-
content.

Mr. Hammill said that generally he agreed with the
views expressed by Mr. Norton. He was favourable to
public-houses being open from one o'clock until twelve
at night on Sunday.
(LEFT SITTING.)

EAST KENT RAILWAY.—EXTENSION TO bovita AND
DOVER HARBOUR.--The Dover committee of share-
holders have issued a statement to the effect that the
main object of the Dover committee is to form a very
numerous and sound local and commercial prosperity,
who will take a few shares each, as a permanent invest.
ment, so as to place the undertaking beyond the con-
trol of the South-Eastern Company, and the preference
shares beyond their reach, except at a high premium.
By this plan of placing the shares the Dover committee
anticipate a permanent rise of 40 per cent., at least, in
their value, on the passing of the act—viz., from 50s. to
70s. per share, while the South-Eastern will not sustain
more than a temporary decline of 10 per cent., or from
621. to 561. per share. The act is expected to receive
the royal assent on or about the 20th instant. Of
course the figures thus given are those of the committee,
and not ours.-11forning Post.
A RUSSIAN SPY IN THE FRENCH CAMP.—On the
occasion of the truce on the 9th of June, for the bury-
ing of the slain, a Pole, holding an officer's commission
in the Russian service, whilst in conversation with a
French military officer, was recognised by the latter as
one who had three nights previously visited the French
camp in a British uniform, and been invited by the
French officer to his tent, where he was regaled with a
glass of absynthe, a fact which the Pole did not for a
moment deny, but boasted of it as a feat of daring.

The committee of inquiry into the operation of the
Sunday Beer Act, passed last session, resumed their
proceedings to-day, by adjournment from last Thursday ;
Mr. H. Berkeley in the chair.
The first witness called was the Hon. Mr. Norton.
He stated that he had acted as a police magistrate for
25 years, in which capacity he had bad great experience
of the operation of the Beer Act of last session. He
had been called upon to adjudicate upon these cases
which called in question the legal meaning of the word
traveller. Two of these cases were of persons
who had arrived by train from London to
Sydenham, and it became a question whether they were
travellers, or not, within the meaning of the act. They
produced their tickets, and, not being known in the
neighbourhood, he held that they were bond fide tra-
vellers, and discharged the information. In one of
those cases the person charged had 4alked from Syden-
ham to London, and from thence back to Sydenham,
when within a mile of his own house he became weary,
and called into a public•house, in which instance he (Mr.
Norton) held him to be a traveller. He had never had
much difficulty personally in defining the term traveller,
which by Dr. Johnson was stated to mean a "wayfarer ;"
and the latter word was defined by the same authority
as being a person who bad travelled sufficiently far from
his own house to prevent his obtaining refreshment there
within a reasonable period of time. He was of opinion
that a person going from London to Hampstead or from
Hampstead to London was a traveller.
By Mr. Gregson—The term bona fide traveller was
not used in previous acts of Parliament having reference
to public-houses ; merely the word traveller, and there
upon arose the question of the meaning of the Legisla
ture.