The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-09 00:00:00

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.

A large number of petitions having been presented in
favour of the bill,
Mr LAWSON moved its second reading. The object of
the measure, which is commonly known as the "Permis-
sive Bill," is to enable any parish, on the approval of the
proposition of a majority of ratepayers, to prevent the sale
of intoxicating liquors during Sunday, by entirely closing
the public•house for four•and-twenty hours.
Capt. JERVIS rose to move that the bill be read a second
time this day six months. He had been five years against
his will in the States of America where the sale of intoxicat-
ing liquors was prohibited, and he knew that drunken-
ness had increased there, A man there, instead of going to
a bar to take his glass, went down into a cellar, where he
got drunk and was kept there, because if he came up and
was seen, the seller would be fined as well as the drinker.
Amongst the higher classes people were obliged to close their
shutters before they brought their wine on the table,
(Laughter.)
Mr ROEBUCK said that during the many years he had

been in Parliament, he had never heard submitted a more
mischievous bill. He did not mince the matter at all.
(Laughter.) By this bill it was proposed that the House
of Commons should abdicate its functions. In the next
place the bill would sow dissension in every parish in Eng-
land, and by the time it came into full operation England
would be no place for a peaceable person to live in. His next
objection to the bill was that it was eminently an unjust
bill and directed entirely against the poor. It was a most

cruel bill. He had great faith in the intentions of the per-
sons who brought forward their bill, but none in their in-
tellect—(hear, hear)—and regarded it as mere idle talk on
a bill which it was well known could not pass. It West-
minster. under this bill, put this bill in operation, would
that extend to the refreshment room of the House of Com-
mons ? Would it have the effect of preventing the in-
troduction of intoxicating liquors into that house ?
Could anything be more foolish than that ? (Laughter.)
This was a bill directed against the poor; for the rich, who
could lay in a stock of such things as they wanted, would
not be in the slightest degree affected by it. As between
the magistrates and the municipal authorities he preferred
the magistrates, although he readily admitted that the
question was well worthy of consideration.

Mr MARTIN opposed the bill on the ground that it
would lead to smuggling, and to worse evils than those
which at present existed.

Mr SCOURFIELD thought the bill would give wide-
spread annoyance.

Sir G. GREY opposed the bill, on the ground that it
would give an intolerable tyranny to the majority. With
regard to an increase in the number of convictions, it was no
proof of the increase of drunkenness, as by the refreshment
houses a new class of offences had been created. He thought
the evil might to a great extent be prevented, if there were
a better administration of the law in the metropolitan
districts. At present a man might be convicted two
or three times, and yet was able to transfer the license. He
thought that in such a case the house should be closed for
at least two years.

Mr. BUXTON considered that great improvements had
taken place in the habits of the working classes. In that
improvement he considered all reforms rested.
Mr. HUMBERSTONE opposed the bill.

Mr. W. FORSTER sympathised with temperance prin.
ciples, but he could not vote for the bill. He could not
think it right to transfer the power of granting licensee from
the magistrates to town councils, although he thought the
inhabitants should have some voice in the number of
licensed houses there should be. He hoped that early next
session a bill would be brought forward by the Govern-
ment for putting the drinking houses of the country under
some general system. (Hear, hear.)
Mr HENLEY said the duty of granting licenses was
very unpleasant duty devolving upon magistrates. The
difficulty they felt was not with regard to public houses,
but with regard to beer houses, on the establishment of
which he thought there ought to be some restraint. He
believed that if this bill passed the people of a parish on
which an interdict was placed would go out of the parish,
and people would drink twice as much. He opposed the
bill because it was unjust, and because he believed it would
be wholly inoperative.
Mr PEASE had hoped that the Government would have
been induced to support the bill after the multitude of
petitions that had been presented.
The house then divided, when there appeared--
For the amendment .. 292
Against it

Majority against the bill
The bill was consequently lost.
VALUATION OF LANDS AND HERITAGES
(SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL,
This bill, which was proposed for second reading was in
parliamentary language " talked out'' at a quarter to six.
RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at 5 minutes to 6.