The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-13 00:00:00

SUNDAY BEER BILL COMMITTEE.

The committee re-assembled at the usual hour ; Mr;
H. Berkeley in the chair.
Mr. Trail was the first witness called. He stated ho
was unable to state whether drunkenness had increased
or diminished since the passing of this bill. He thought
drunkenness was on the decline. In reply to a question
from the chairman whether that was to be attributed to
the increase of education, he stated that the weather had
more to do with the increase or decrease of drunkenness
than anything else. He was of opinion the drunkard
would drink, and in consequence of his being prevented
from obtaining it at licensed houses, it increased
the sale of intoxicating drinks for consumption in
private houses. He thought the latter mode
more objectionable than the permission of drink-
ing
in a licensed house, under the responsibility of
the licensed victualler and the surveillance of the police.
He was wholly incapable of forming an opinion of any
inconveniences having arisen from this bill from his not
sitting on a Monday. He believed a few such cases bad
occurred ; the state of the business oti Monday seas
pretty much the same now as before the passing of this
bill. No restrictions on the trade would, he thought,
prevent drunkenness. He would suggest the power of
the magistrate to be enabled to impose a heavy penalty,
or otherwise, in the magistrate's discretion as a preven-
tivs of drunkenness ; if the penalty was not paid, the
alternative should be imprisonment. As no w, every
hour a public-house was closed, it Citninished
the opportunity of drinking, and to a certain
extent drunkenness. He thought the old act
a reasonable restriction on the trade, and by
diminishing the opportunity of getting drink bad a very
beneficial effect on the conduct of the people. He was of
opinion that the continual opening and abutting of the
houses on Sunday, gave so many more temptations, to
commit offences ; the public-houses being opened from
1 o'clock to 11 o'clock at night was better than the pre-
sent regulations ; the exceptions in the act were very
bad ; the present act has not had the effect of causing
a better observance of the Sabbath, but had been pro-
ductive of much inconvenience. It would have been
very desirable bad there been an appeal clause against
the magistrates' decision in all cases as to who was a
" traveller.;" if the exception in the act was struck out,
a publican would be justified in opening his house to a
traveller, but not to keep it open to the public.
Mr. Baynton, of the Hammersmith and Wandsworth
police court, has had a considerable number of cases
under this statute. He had had more cases before him
as to the definition of a traveller, and his definition was
that a traveller wes a person going from place to place
on some duty or service. Many of the houses in the
suburbs of London had been materially affeated by this
act, and some shut up. At Puteey, one publican opened
his house after the passing of this act, placed on his door
a placard "refreshment for travellers," and had a book
on the counter, in which persons who went there wrote
their names and addresses. The pUblican was summoned
before him, and he fined him the full penalty of 51. An
appeal was made against his decision, and it was quashed.
It was very desirable that the public and the publican
should not be placed in such an inconvenient position as
they now were, by the operations of the present act ; it
created an invidious distinction between the rich and the
poor as to their means of obtaining refreshments on
Sunday, such as ought not to exist; he had no doubt there
had been an increase of drinking since the passing of
this act, there had been more drink taken out of the
public-house during the prohibited hours for consump-
tion in private houses than formerly. It took place be-
tween 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock, and was greater than
formerly between 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock. It was more
desirable the people should drink in licensed houses than
in private houses. The police in his district had
more rigidly enforced the closing of houses
from five o'clock to six o'clock than from
three to five o'clock ;he thotight the closing of the
houses so early on Sunday a hardship on those who had
no homes and no fire-side hut at the public-houses.
These people generally spent their Sunday morning when
the public-houses were closed in lying in bed or walking
about. He thought the keeping open the houses until
11 o'clock on Sunday night would not be so much fur
the convenience of the poor as those removed above
them. Most of the poor retired to bed by 10 o'clock.
He would rather, if it could be-clone, the houses should
be closed at 10 o'clock. He thought people congregated
in hotels could not be turned out at 10 o'clock ; the land-
lord, however, ought not to permit the consumption of
spirits in his house after that time. He thought the de-
finition of a traveller by Mr. Norton rather too
lax. He had never interpreted the word in
that way. He could not say whether the poor
man had been refused admission, say into the " Cat and
Fiddle," whilst the rich man had been admitted to the
" Star and Garter." He had known, however, of no
hotel keeper being proceeded against under this act.
11e should not call a man who went from Westminster-
bridge to Greenwich a traveller. His definition of the
word was a man travelling from necessity or business,
and so far from his house as not to be able to obtain
refreshment. A man going from Shoredith Church to
Hackney on business was a traveller, but a man going
from Shoreditch Churcheto Homerton on pleasure was
not. If a man went there partly on pleasure, he
should allow the latter to prevail in his mind in
interpreting the act. A man having a sick child
at Greenwich, ho should consider his going there
to visit it a matter of necessity, and considered him a
traveller. The appeal he referred to above he believed
was under the Police Act, as the Beer Act gave no ap-
peal. No doubt it was a great hardship for the poor
man, when he returned from an excursion trip, to have
to go supperless to bed, whilst the rich man could gain
admission to his club or hotel.

Sir Richard Mayne, Chief Commissioner of the Metro-
politan'Police—He had attended to the working of the
act since its passing. He had had a return made of the
number of persons who had been in the hands of the
police for drunkenness from January to June, 1854, and
from January to June, 1855. He bad had the return
made up in three ways, and comprised the district em-
bracing the metropolitan police courts and a radius of
16 miles from Charing-cross, omitting the city of Lon-
don, and containing a population of two millions and a
half or more. The number in 1854 was 13,814, and in
1855 to 12,333 • in the hands of the police on the Mon-
day mornings for 1854 the number was 3,224, and in
1855 it was 2,076 ; on the Tuesday mornings in 1854
there were 2,542, and in 1855, 2,441. The numbers
differed in some divisions very materially. In the Covent-
garden district, extending from Temple-bar to Charing-
cross, and Holborn and the river, and taking in the
Strand and St. Giles's, the aggregate number was in
1854, 1,922 ; and in 1855, 1,370. One of his superin-
tendents considered this diminution arises from the tape-
tion of the present act. There were a variety of causes
to which an increase or diminution of drunkenness might
be attributed. He was not aware that the weather had
any effect on intemperance. He did not think diink
was sold in greater quantities at coffee-houses now than
formerly. The police bad no authority to enter coffee-
houses to ascertain that fact. Towns were no doubt
more inconvenienced by the operation of this act than
the country districts. The poor, no doubt, felt greater
inconvenience from the operation of this act than the
rich, who have their clubs or hotels to resort to, and
that must always be the case in legislation. He had
had reports made him of the number of excursions cut
of London, and he found that generally the average on
a Sunday was, that at the South-Western railway station
alone there were 3,000 persons inconvenienced on a
Sunday night in not being able to procure refreshment
after 10 o'clock. So far as he had an opportunity of
forming an opinion from information derived' from
others, he thought inconvenience was found in rural
districts from the public-houses being closed from
2 o'clock to 6 o'clock, and in towns from the closing
at 10 o'clock ; he considered it was a hardship on the
people-public houses being closed as now. It was highly
desirable the claims relative to a traveller should be
altered. When the act first came into operation several
publicans came to him and asked him for his opinion on
what was a traveller, but he was unable to give a Fatis-
factory definition of the word, • and he declined giving
the. information required ; they could only be guided by
the decisions of the magistrates of the district. In the
different districts the police take a different course with
respect to it in consequence. When the houses were
'closed till one o'clock on Sunday morning, it produced
good results. The question of traveller arose under the
former act, but not so much as now. There are further
restraints put upon the trade. In many districts a rail
way ticket was shown to the landlord, which he cni-e.i-
dered sufficient proof the person so presenting it was a
traveller. Unquestionably there had been a great im-
provement in the observance of the Sabbath, especially
in the evening during the past year. He greatly ob-
jected to the police being permitted to visit coffee-hous,:s
as private individuals to detect the Bolling of spirits
there. It was impossible for him to say what had caused.
the improvement above stated in the observance of the
Sabbath. He believed the beer bill of last session had
ceeated dissatisfaction, amongst the frequenters of public-
houses especially, and increased the excitement
that had occurred two Sundays since with reference
to the Sunday Trading Bill. He thought that
dissatisfaction did not rest only with the lower classes.
His impression was that there was more inconvenience
arising from the closing public-houses from two o'clock
to six o'clock than advantage gained, and pressed on
tliwie above the lower claF+.;.e3 %%ha :soil out for mere:- •
tion and wou;ki, not aloes •at privilege granted thew.
, ;

The t,ivalitago ~bov.v.zi by he I'Amiv, ."1,(
or partially obtained by a modification of tLe present
act. lie thought public-houses might safely be open
from one o'clock to eleven o'clock at night. lie could
see no great tendency to disturbance on the part of the
people
who attended places of recreation, At these